ENVI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, June 5, 2003

1110

The Chair (The Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.))

The Right Honourable Herb Gray (Chairman, Canadian Section, International Joint Commission)

1115

1120

1125

The Chair

Professor Vernon Thomas (Department of Zoology, University of Guelph)

1130

1135

Ms. Charlotte Vasarhelyi (University of Guelph)

1140

1145

Prof. Vernon Thomas

1150

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance)

Right Hon. Herb Gray

Mr. Bob Mills

1155

Right Hon. Herb Gray

Mr. Bob Mills

Right Hon. Herb Gray

Mr. Bob Mills

Right Hon. Herb Gray

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ)

Right Hon. Herb Gray

1200

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Right Hon. Herb Gray

1205

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP)

Right Hon. Herb Gray

Mr. Joe Comartin

Right Hon. Herb Gray

1210

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

1215

The Chair

Right Hon. Herb Gray

1220

Mr. Joe Comartin

Right Hon. Herb Gray

The Chair

Right Hon. Herb Gray

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

Right Hon. Herb Gray

1225

The Chair

Dr. Gail Krantzberg (Director, Great Lakes Regional Office, International Joint Commission)

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.)

Right Hon. Herb Gray

1230

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Prof. Vernon Thomas

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Prof. Vernon Thomas

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Right Hon. Herb Gray

The Chair

1235

Prof. Vernon Thomas

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.)

Prof. Vernon Thomas

1240

Right Hon. Herb Gray

Dr. Gail Krantzberg

Right Hon. Herb Gray

Dr. Gail Krantzberg

Right Hon. Herb Gray

Dr. Gail Krantzberg

Mr. Alan Tonks

1245

The Chair

Prof. Vernon Thomas

The Chair

Right Hon. Herb Gray

The Chair

Right Hon. Herb Gray

The Chair

Right Hon. Herb Gray

The Chair

Right Hon. Herb Gray

1250

The Chair

Right Hon. Herb Gray

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

Right Hon. Herb Gray

1255

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Right Hon. Herb Gray

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Right Hon. Herb Gray

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Right Hon. Herb Gray

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Right Hon. Herb Gray

Mr. Bernard Bigras

1300

Right Hon. Herb Gray

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Prof. Vernon Thomas

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Charlotte Vasarhelyi

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Charlotte Vasarhelyi

Prof. Vernon Thomas

1305

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Dr. Gail Krantzberg

Mr. Joe Comartin

Dr. Gail Krantzberg

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Right Hon. Herb Gray

1310

Dr. Gail Krantzberg

Prof. Vernon Thomas

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Right Hon. Herb Gray

1315

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan

Right Hon. Herb Gray

The Chair

Prof. Vernon Thomas

The Chair

Prof. Vernon Thomas

The Chair

Right Hon. Herb Gray

The Chair

Right Hon. Herb Gray

The Chair

Right Hon. Herb Gray

Dr. Gail Krantzberg

The Chair

1320

Dr. Gail Krantzberg

The Chair

Dr. Gail Krantzberg

The Chair

Dr. Gail Krantzberg

The Chair

Dr. Gail Krantzberg

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance)

Right Hon. Herb Gray

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Prof. Vernon Thomas

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

NUMBER 025

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, June 5, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1110)

[Translation]

The Chair (The Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

[English]

The meeting today is of particular significance because we have two outstanding institutions as witnesses before us, the University of Guelph and the IJC, or the International Joint Commission. Both are well known for different reasons and different achievements, but it is a particular honour for the members of this committee to hear you today on matters related to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, probably one of the most outstanding international agreements ever achieved, particularly in North America.

I welcome you all, and I presume that the IJC would wish to proceed first. We welcome the Right Honourable Herb Gray, Ms. Krantzberg, and Mr. Clamen from the IJC.

You have the floor. If you can possibly contain your intervention to about 15 minutes, then we can engage in a good round of questions and answers.

The Right Honourable Herb Gray (Chairman, Canadian Section, International Joint Commission): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm delighted to be here today.

I will be the spokesman for the commission, but to assist me in answering questions, I have Dr. Gail Krantzberg, director of the Great Lakes Regional Office of the International Joint Commission, and Dr. Murray Clamen, the secretary, meaning the top permanent official of the Canadian section of the commission based here in Ottawa, where I'm based as well.

I want to make a presentation that will be well within 15 minutes. I'm only going to deal with certain aspects of the matters raised in the statement I have already circulated. With your permission, I would be very happy to have the parts that I don't present verbally to be taken as presented by me and published in their entirety in your proceedings, if the committee were willing to do that. But in order to follow your instructions, I'm only going to present certain portions of the statement you already have.

I do thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the International Joint Commission's most recent reports, and especially its 11th Biennial Report on the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, released only last September, particularly what it says about alien invasive species.

I would like to begin by saying something about the role of the commission. The commission was created almost 100 years ago by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, signed by Canada and the United States. The purpose of the commission is to prevent and resolve disputes along and across the entire Canada-U.S. border, from one ocean to the other, at those places where that boundary is formed by lakes or rivers, like the Great Lakes, and the international section of the St. Lawrence between Cornwall and Massena. To my left, you'll see a map illustrating what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about also applies to places where the border is crossed by waterways, like the Red River flowing from North Dakota into Manitoba. The commission also plays the same role with the boundary waters forming or crossing the U.S.-Canada boundary between the Yukon, B.C., and Alaska. In short, the commission deals with transboundary environmental matters—matters involving water and the air above those waters.

There are six commissioners, three from the United States and three from Canada, who operate on the basis of absolute equality, despite the disparity in the size of populations and economies of the two countries. They make decisions through reaching consensus, often after extensive dialogue. And while the commission formally communicates with the two federal governments, through the Department of Foreign Affairs in Canada and the State Department in the United States, it is an autonomous international organization based on the treaty. It acts independently, and does not take direction from the two governments. However, it works closely with all relevant government departments in both countries—almost on a daily basis.

Under the treaty, the commission may be called upon by the parties to consider applications to build structures, like dams or canals over or under the boundary waters. If it approves such a project, the commission issues an order of approval for the structure, and attaches conditions about that approval. For example, it may attach conditions to matters involving water levels and flows that may be affected by the structure; and after the structure is built, the commission establishes a permanent control board to oversee the implementation of the order and the related conditions. Such boards operate at the international section of the St. Lawrence Seaway, at the Niagara River, at St. Mary's River at Sault Ste. Marie, and other places as well.

The commission has not been called on to deal with new applications or orders about structures since the early 1960s. However, if there are new projects, like another crossing over the Detroit River, and if that crossing is not dealt with by a separate binational agreement, the commission may well be called upon to hold hearings on the proposal. I think that is some years distant, though.

The commission looks into other matters in a formal way only in response to specific requests to do so from governments, called references. The needed resources have to be provided by the governments when they ask the commission to respond to references by providing reports setting out findings and recommendations for action. These reports are not just made to governments but are also released to the public.

The commission does not manage or fund programs directly. It does not itself carry out direct research in the sense of gathering and analyzing samples from water or air. However, the commission has 19 permanent scientific boards, control boards, and task forces reporting to it. As required, others are set up to work on references.

As I've said, some boards control the apportionment of water in places like the St. Mary's River at the Sault, or the international section of the St. Lawrence. Others, like the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board, consider scientific matters. All are composed of equal numbers of Canadians and Americans, who are seconded by their departments but continue with full-time positions in their departments—or often in universities. They are experts in their fields who participate on the commission's boards in their personal and professional capacity, and not as representatives of their employing governments or institutions. By the way, the commissioners also do not serve as representatives of their governments, which is very different from ordinary international institutions; we serve on the basis of the best interests of the populations and the objectives of the treaty.

The commission also alerts governments to emerging situations along the border, such as the safety of dams or the potential introduction of alien species, like the Asian carp, into the Great Lakes. These are situations that carry the potential for binational boundary water or air concerns. Therefore, the alerting function hopefully encourages early action by governments to avoid or resolve these issues.

I want to say something in particular about the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Although the International Joint Commission works along the entire length of the Canada-U.S. boundary, a very large part of the commission's time and resources are spent in assisting the governments in implementing the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

Canada and the United States first signed this agreement in 1972. Subsequently, in 1978, they signed the current version of the agreement pledging to restore the Great Lakes ecosystem to physical, chemical, and biological health. The agreement contains a permanent reference to the IJC to assist in implementing the agreement. One of the specific requirements of the agreement is that:

The Commission shall make a fullreport to the Parties and to the State and Provincial Governments no less frequently thanbiennially concerning progress toward the general and Specific Objectives including, asappropriate, matters related to Annexes to this Agreement.

One annex is very interesting and important in my view, annex 15 dealing with air pollution. This report says that the agreement shall include an assessment of the effectiveness of the programs and other measures undertaken pursuant to this agreement.

As I said, in September of last year, the commission released to the two federal governments and the public its 11th Biennial Report on the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The report highlights three critical issues our two countries must address in order to restore the world-class ecosystem that is the Great Lakes. One is alien invasive species, namely, stopping existing and further introductions of such species. The second is indicators, or having measures for improving the monitoring of and reporting on ecosystem health. Third is contaminated sediment, or cleaning up sediment contaminated with toxic chemicals. The report also addresses 14 other matters of importance relevant to the agreement and the health of the Great Lakes.

Á (1115)

One critical issue raised in this report is that of alien invasive species transferred, usually unwittingly, from foreign ecosystems into the Great Lakes. These creatures have shown they can thrive in the Great Lakes unhindered by any natural controls such as the predators they might confront in their native ecosystems. Exploding zebra mussel populations, for instance, have caused hundreds of millions of dollars of damage to water intakes and generally great ecological harm. You are also aware of the damage caused by the sea lamprey, and now, fortunately, they're largely but not entirely under control. You may want to ask me about the fate of that program.

Recently, we have seen the Asian carp moving up the Mississippi River system. If not kept out by electric barriers in the Illinois River near Chicago, the species would enter the Great Lakes and wreak havoc with Great Lakes ecosystems, eating all the plant food, the plankton that comprise the food source of many native fish in the Great Lakes. There are now more than 160 non-indigenous species in the Great Lakes threatening the sustainability of this ecosystem. A real risk remains that the next alien species, if allowed into the lakes and allowed to reproduce itself, could cause even greater damage than the zebra mussel.

Because ballast water in ocean-going ships is the primary source of the threat, the United States has responded by developing regulations and Canada has developed voluntary ballast water guidelines. These regulations and guidelines administered by federal officials in both countries require the exchange of ballast water from ships before they enter the Great Lakes through the St. Lawrence River, actually out in the ocean before they even enter the estuary. Risks remain, because the majority of the ships entering the Great Lakes system can claim no ballast on board, and if they do, they will not be inspected. Even if ships are inspected, they still may harbour alien species in the form of the larvae, or the fry, in the sediments remaining in virtually empty ballast tanks, empty of water, or in the bio-films contaminating hulls or anchor chains.

Also, when the ballast tanks are filled with Great Lakes water after the cargo is unloaded and then subsequently emptied elsewhere in the lakes as new cargo is taken on, the sludge and sediment containing alien species, larvae, or fry may be discharged along with that ballast water.

Other sources of the introduction and spread of alien species are bait boxes and boats of sports fishermen moving from another basin into the Great Lakes. There's also the problem of the sale of live alien species of fish like the Asian carp in some ethnic fish markets and restaurants in Great Lake cities such as Toronto or Chicago.

In the light of the risk involved to the Great Lakes ecosystem, we, the International Joint Commission, believe both national governments must urgently take more aggressive steps to prevent future alien species introductions, including new compulsory rules and programs to especially ensure that those ships that claim no ballast on board do not contain alien species that would contaminate our waters. Research on measures to control species already in the lakes is required as well.

In the tenth biennial report issued in 2000, the commission recommended that it be given a reference to develop binational standards for ballast water discharge and other measures to deal with alien invasive species. While both the Canadian and U.S. governments responded that progress was being made, they did not provide for any such reference, and the commission remains concerned that the pace of that progress is much too slow while the risks to the lakes remain high.

Therefore, in its eleventh biennial report, the most recent one, the commission is again recommending it be given a reference on alien invasive species to coordinate all the bits and pieces, all the various binational efforts, for action to stop this ongoing threat to the economy and the biological integrity of the Great Lakes.

Á (1120)

I would encourage all committee members to note the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in their May 27 report entitled “Aquatic Invasive Species: Uninvited Guests”. The International Joint Commission met with that committee in February of this year, and we outlined our concerns on this topic.

The committee's findings reconfirm our concerns regarding the slow pace of progress and the committee's recommendations reflect the urgent need to take quick action. If I can quote recommendation two of your sister committee, that recommendation states: “ThatCanada seek a permanent reference to the International Joint Commission to coordinate andharmonize binational efforts for action to counter the threat of aquatic invasive species in theGreat Lakes basin”.

So we ask this Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to similarly support our recommendations, including a request for an alien invasive species reference.

I'm going to move ahead, although as I've said, where there are parts that I'm presenting verbally I would ask you to accept them as given and, if the rules permit, to publish the entire document.

I want to conclude by saying that the commission holds a major public meeting on the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement every two years. At this special biennial meeting there are technical workshops on the issues that have been investigated by the commission's boards and open forums where the public and NGOs are given an opportunity to comment. After this meeting, the commission prepares its next biennial report on Great Lakes water quality, integrating the findings and comments.

The previous meeting was held in Montreal, but the next meeting will be this fall, September 18 to 20, on the campus of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. I invite you all to join us for this major commission activity. Details of the program are on our website.

In its work, the International Joint Commission collaborates with a number of other organizations, particularly someone well known to you, the parliamentary Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, and the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation. In addition, we are in touch with the Canadian National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

We're in regular communication with industry, business, environmental, and community groups around the Great Lakes Basin and all along the waters over which the IJC has some oversight under the Boundary Waters Treaty. Examples are Great Lakes United, the Council of Great Lakes Industries, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the Georgian Bay Association, the Sierra Club, and Pollution Probe.

As I've said, we're in regular and frequent contact with all relevant government departments and agencies in both countries.

I thank you for giving me this opportunity to outline some of the work of the International Joint Commission, particularly regarding alien invasive species. When I'm open to your questions and comments, I'd be happy to respond et en français, et en anglais, including on matters that I have not commented on in this brief presentation.

Á (1125)

Again, may I say I look forward to your support for the recommendations that I have outlined today and in our reports. I look forward to keeping in touch with the committee and all of its members, in fact, with all those concerned with our environment, especially the waters and the air over them, without which we and our world could not continue to exist.

Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gray.

Dr. Thomas.

Professor Vernon Thomas (Department of Zoology, University of Guelph): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, good morning.

The presentation that I'm about to give orally has been largely translated into the overview that is before you today and so my comments will follow that overview quite closely. Part of my presentation will also be handled by my assistant, Charlotte Vasarhelyi, who is a former graduate student of mine and whose work on this area has already been published.

The problem of international scope that Herb Gray has referred to has become so serious that the biodiversity convention referred to it as an area needing urgent attention by all parties to that convention. It's under article 8(h). As a consequence of this, as a party to that convention we are required to act on all matters pertaining to invasive terrestrial and aquatic species. If we don't act, then we're not fulfilling the spirit of that convention.

The problems Mr. Gray has referred to are likely to become worse if global warming should continue at its already existing pace. What it means is that should the waters of the Great Lakes region moderate and become even more temperate, then we are likely to receive species from other parts of the world in perhaps increasing numbers, and not only that, we are also likely to see species that are currently native to the southern United States extend their range farther north and become competitors of Great Lakes biodiversity and perhaps even bigger competitors with our local economies.

I'd like to include a parallel at this stage in the presentation between the environment problem we are talking about today and the problem of human health.

For the past two months we regret to say that we have been very well aware of the problem created by an invasive virus that has produced the SARS syndrome, particularly in Toronto. It has caused an enormous amount of medical problems, personal societal problems, and one can say an enormous economic problem not only to the city of Toronto but also to Ontario and Canada at large.

To that list we can add a newly discovered invasive species in the form of the West Nile virus, and the economic impacts of that, as well as the societal and medical, are already becoming well established.

To extend the parallel even farther, we can look at the issue of another invasive particle, that particle that has produced a syndrome, mad cow disease, in Albertan livestock.

We are aware of these issues because they are invaders to Canada. We're aware of them because of the enormous impact upon our agriculture, and our health and welfare, and because of those impacts we can readily document the economic cost. I would argue that we have to be just as vigilant about the invasive species coming into our fresh water and our coastal maritime systems. They are nonetheless as destructive and expensive.

Let me give you some figures on those particular cases. Dr. David Pimentel in the United States estimated that on the United States' side of the Great Lakes and its tributary waters, invasive species were causing annually approximately $1,100 million in direct economic damage alone, and that is not taking into consideration the impact upon other components of that Great Lakes ecosystem.

In Canada, Dr. Hugh MacIsaac from Windsor estimated that nationally agriculture is impacted by invasive species to the extent of approximately $5 billion to $14 billion a year, and in the forestry sector those invasive species are causing approximately $7 billion to $20 billion of damage a year.

Ranked against SARS and mad cow disease, those figures, I would argue, are highly significant and therefore we have to take the risks just as seriously, whether to biodiversity or to the economy, and therefore my position is that we as a government need to take very serious legislative action on this ecological problem.

Mr. Gray has indicated that we have a set of voluntary guidelines. We do not have any binding legislation requiring action to prevent or action to eradicate. By contrast, in the United States, both at the federal level and at the Great Lakes state level, there has been an enormous amount of legislation put forth, and it's currently being updated, dealing not only with the issue of invasion but also with the issue of subsequent spread to inland waters.

Á (1130)

Let's be frank. Without enabling legislation there can be no capacity for management. Enabling legislation is what enables a government or a department to commit funds, to commit personnel, and perhaps to be accountable on a particular issue. So if we're going to be serious about dealing with this issue, we have to create the appropriate enabling legislation.

In this presentation we are going to focus in a very pragmatic way upon two issues. The first one is the issue of invasive species coming in through ballast waters and a loophole. The second is how do we develop a fast action response when we have found a newly invasive species that has the potential to be devastating?

This pair of questions can also be rephrased. How do we implement our obligations under the biodiversity convention, as we have clearly said we would? Also, how do we consummate the enormous amount of research that has been done, and is being done, and is looking for an outlet in effective management to deal with this issue? Two questions, prevention and control.

The remainder of this presentation will be handled by Charlotte Vasarhelyi, whose work on this, as I've said, has been published. She is going to focus on developing the legal capacity in these two areas.

Charlotte.

Á (1135)

Ms. Charlotte Vasarhelyi (University of Guelph): Thank you, Vernon.

First I'm going to give you a brief overview regarding exotic nuisance species and their introductions to the Great Lakes via ballast water, specifically. Then I'll address suggested amendments to specific legislation to deal with the introduction and spread of exotic nuisance species, especially that which is applicable to NOBOB vessels.

As Herb Gray mentioned, ballast water has been identified as a primary vector for the introduction and subsequent spread of exotic nuisance species in the Great Lakes. A study by Mills et al. concluded that 40 exotic nuisance species became established in the Great Lakes between 1960 and 1990, and approximately 60% of these were likely due to ballast water.

So the risk of new introductions and the spread of exotic nuisance species are significant.

As mentioned before, in 1989 Canada introduced the voluntary guidelines for ballast water exchange, which requested that ships entering the Great Lakes from outside the exclusive economic zone perform mid-ocean ballast water exchange. However, since that time Canada has not introduced mandatory regulations to deal with this problem, and instead it helps the U.S. enforce through the United States' regulations.

So despite current American regulations and Canadian voluntary guidelines, new introductions of exotic nuisance species continue to be a problem in the Great Lakes. This is likely because many of the ships that are entering the Great Lakes are declared as having no ballast on board, so they are fully loaded with cargo, and these NOBOBs are important to consider because they are exempt from current ballast water regulations. This is an important loophole in legislation that must be closed to deal with this problem. A recent study by Dr. Niimi of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans found that of 26 NOBOB vessels examined, nine vessels, which was approximately 35%, contained at least one ballast tank with residual fresh water.

Despite the problem of exotic nuisance species invasions via ballast water, Canada has not enacted mandatory legislation to deal with the problem. However, existing legislation at both the bilateral level and the federal level in Canada, if amended, could be used to deal with this problem.

So now I'm going to go on to address the specific pieces of legislation that I have selected and talk about how these can be used to prevent the introduction and the spread of exotic nuisance species, especially through NOBOB vessels.

First, looking at the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, this act was introduced to implement the Canada-U.S. Boundary Waters Treaty. It deals in part with pollution of boundary waters, but also it deals with a number of other issues such as water flow and levels and other environmental concerns. The traditional definition of “pollution” revolves around chemicals, but if this definition were broadened to include exotic nuisance species in ballast water, then provisions for regulation of exotic nuisance species could be developed under this act.

Similarly, several Canadian acts--namely, the Canada Shipping Act, the Fisheries Act, and the Canada Water Act--if amended, could serve as supportive legislation.

The private member's bill, Bill C-389, was introduced into the federal Parliament in 1989, and it was proposed to amend the Canada Shipping Act. The definition of “pollutant” in the bill is: “ballast water that has not been exchanged in accordance with the regulations under this Part”. However, the likelihood of passage of this bill is minimal because it is a private member's bill, but the spirit of the bill could be used to amend or make amendments to the Canada Shipping Act.

Looking at the Fisheries Act, we see that there are provisions for habitat protection and pollution prevention under the act. Section 34 and section 36 of the act prohibit the deposit of a deleterious substance in water frequented by fish or any place where the deleterious substance may enter such waters. However, the term “deleterious substance” is not clearly defined in the act. As well, paragraph 34(1)(b) mentions ballast water, but it's not in the context of exotic nuisance species.

So amendments that could be made to the act include broadening the definition of “deleterious substance” to include exotic nuisance species in ballast water. This amendment would require all vessels entering the St. Lawrence to either perform mid-ocean ballast water exchange or to provide treatment for residual ballast water.

Á (1140)

The Canada Water Act divides the responsibility of water resources between the federal and provincial governments. The purpose of the act is to promote research and to implement programs for freshwater use.

Under the Canada Water Act, pollution focuses around chemicals, and exotic nuisance species are not mentioned in the act. The term “waste” is defined in the act as “any substance that, if added to any water, would degrade or alter or form part of a process of degradation or alteration of the quality of that water to an extent that is detrimental to their use by man or by any animal, fish or plant that is useful to man”. However, if the term “waste”, again, were broadened to include any substance or non-native biota, then provisions for the prevention and control of exotic nuisance species could be developed under this act.

The United States recently introduced a federal bill entitled the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act. If this bill were successfully passed, then it would close the loophole for NOBOB vessel regulations on the U.S. side. What Canada needs to do is reciprocate this, given the current problem of exotic nuisance species introductions and spread within Canadian waters.

Perhaps the most appropriate course of action would be to amend existing legislation to create provisions for the prevention and control of exotic nuisance species in the Great Lakes. This could be done using some of the examples I have already provided.

The second issue I want to talk about today is a fast action response to exotic nuisance species in the Great Lakes. The key to preventing invasions and the spread of exotic nuisance species is twofold. First, you need an early detection and then a fast action response. The prevention of introductions and spread is important because, once an exotic species becomes established, they are very difficult, if not impossible, to eradicate. As well, the economic costs associated with control and management far outweigh those costs associated with prevention.

A fast action response is needed because exotic nuisance species are currently being introduced into the Great Lakes by both intentional and unintentional means, through things such as ballast water, but also through aquaculture, garden releases, and bait fish. Additionally, exotic species are being spread among the Great Lakes and the associated waterways through vectors such as canals and sport boating. Canada needs to address all of these issues, not only ballast water.

Australia provides a very good example of how a fast action response can be used to successfully eradicate a newly discovered exotic nuisance species. One such case is of an exotic mussel that was discovered in late March 1999 in Australian waters. Three days after first observation, legislative amendments were made to both the Fisheries Act and the Commonwealth Quarantine Act. These legislative amendments allowed for the quarantining of the three infected harbours. The fast action response shown in this case by all parties involved allowed for the successful eradication of the exotic mussel within 26 days of first observation.

So Canada could use Australia as a template for developing its own federal fast action response to exotic species. The habitat protection provisions under the Fisheries Act could be extended to exotic nuisance species and require that a fast action response be developed to protect freshwater habitat and the associated species within the Great Lakes.

Under the Canada Water Act, an extension of the definition of waste to include exotic nuisance species could be used to provide a legal basis for a fast action response. Furthermore, the Canada-U.S. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement obliges Canada to manage invasive species, to restore and maintain the biological integrity of the Great Lakes. Taking action on exotic nuisance species is consistent with this obligation and it would require that the current focus revolving around chemicals and pollution be widened to include management of exotic nuisance species.

The broadening of definitions in the Fisheries Act and the Canada Water Act would provide the federal authority to implement a fast action response to newly introduced species. And such legislative changes would support this agreement.

However, in order to develop a fast action response, a management framework needs to be established outlining the role of all parties involved, including the federal and provincial governments, as well as agencies such as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Transport Canada, and Environment Canada. This would provide a consistent, fast response involving both the federal and provincial governments and all other agencies involved in exotic nuisance species prevention.

Á (1145)

Again, in the United States the recently proposed National Aquatic Invasive Species Act has included conventions for developing a fast action response in the United States. So we see that, again, the United States has acknowledged a fast action response to newly introduced exotic species as a priority and it is developing a strategy. So it's taking its first steps towards dealing with this problem.

Because the Great Lakes are a shared resource, Canada should implement similar legislation to the United States to provide a consistent and complementary management capacity for exotic nuisance species.

Prof. Vernon Thomas: Thank you, Charlotte.

Here in this presentation we have identified two discrete pragmatic areas. One is the issue of preventing exotic species from coming in; and should some pass through that sieve, then the second is how to deal in an eradication way with those species, not only in the federally regulated waters but also perhaps in the provincially regulated waters adjacent to them.

Our theme is one of expediency, and we've indicated where several pieces of federal legislation could be broadened in their definitions to include such provisions. We would suggest that this is a more expedient way of proceeding, rather than trying to create a new piece of legislation specifically for the Great Lakes. Such an initiative on the federal government would enable us to comply with our obligations under the biodiversity convention and also to complement American initiatives already underway. In fact, one could go a little farther and say, if we don't do anything, we could be thwarting or acting against the interests of the Americans in their legislative revisions.

I would argue that these changes or amendments or broadening of definitions are politically expedient. I doubt among the members of this committee that there would be any real opposition to this on the part of the current government, simply because it is deliberately conservative of all environments, their biodiversity, and their associated human economies. Likewise, I would not expect there to be any opposition from the provinces on this matter, simply because the government would be acting in a consistent national manner in the interests of provincial economies and the biodiversity of those same provinces. It might not be the same sort of show that we had over Kyoto and the opponents to that.

I would like to end by referring to another parallel, again related to environment regulations in the United States and Canada.

About 87 years ago a very prescient treaty was brought forth, namely, the Migratory Birds Treaty between Canada and the United States. Very smart legislators at that time put this treaty into effect, and to uphold that treaty, both Canada and the United States developed their own separate, but complementary legislation that allowed the two parties to manage their common resource, migratory birds, in a consistent and complementary manner. This was done 87 years ago. It still exists today as perhaps the hallmark legislation in animal conservation. No other legislation has this same provision over that same geographic scale. That was put in place for managing migratory birds, particularly waterfowl populations.

Seventeen years ago the Government of Canada and the United States, and latterly Mexico, joined together in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, a very ambitious plan to spend approximately $100 million U.S. a year on securing yet more habitats for these same species. It works very well. Why? Because there is a conviction that this is good, it is necessary, and there are many people prepared to support it.

I would argue that what is good for ducks is good for invasive species. We have, on the one hand, a treaty and complementary bilateral legislation that enable wise management of waterfowl populations to occur. I think we could do the same for invasive species in the Great Lakes.

Thank you.

Á (1150)

The Chair: Thank you, Dr. Thomas.

We might be able to have two rounds of questions if people can control their time to five minutes, possibly. We will start with Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, guests, particularly Mr. Gray, who was a colleague for a number of years.

Mr. Gray, I would like to ask one specific question about air quality, which is part of the IJC mandate between the U.S. and Canada. Obviously we have these problems in southern Ontario, which is the most polluted air shed in Canada.

The second most polluted air shed is the Fraser Valley. Having been involved now for two years in the Sumas hearings, which are going on as we speak, I have not seen or heard of any involvement of IJC in that most important issue, which basically involves building a power plant in Washington state, on the border, with the air shed there already the second most polluted in Canada and that air coming right into Canada. Basically, Washington gets the jobs and gets the energy to sell to California, and B.C. gets the pollution, gets the use of their aquifer, gets the sewage, and of course, gets the five tonnes of particulate matter, etc., into their air shed.

I wonder if you are aware of anything the IJC has done to work with Washington state and B.C. on that?.

Right Hon. Herb Gray: The commission is very much aware of this problem. We have been contacted directly by mayors in the area. Using our alerting function, we have brought these concerns directly to senior levels of government in both countries.

In order for us to go into the matter in a more formal way, we would have to receive a reference from the Canadian and American governments enabling us to convene an expert board to set up a neutral fact-finding and scientific basis for action and to prepare a formal report, as we did, for example, with respect to flooding of the Red River between North Dakota and Manitoba.

So we are aware of the issue. We are aware of the public concern. We have used our alerting function to raise the matter with the governments. For us to be involved more directly, the two governments would have to give us a reference, so if you or this committee could convince the governments to give us a formal reference, we'd be delighted to go into the matter more fully and more formally.

Mr. Bob Mills: Now let me draw on your government experience. Obviously there have been people, gatherings of the public with 6,000 or 8,000 people. There have been hundreds of petitions. There has been a huge involvement of the public.

I know Environment Canada has provided some background material but has not interjected at the hearings in Washington state or at the NEB hearings that are going on in B.C. I guess I find it very frustrating when the Government of British Columbia is opposing it. The City of Abbotsford is opposing it. There are all of these petitions and everything, and there has been no formal government action either in the U.S. or in Canada.

I met with Governor Locke; I went to the hearings in the U.S. I was allowed to be an intervener in the U.S., but I was refused as an intervener in Canada. That's how involved the government wants to get in this issue. I'm going to intervene anyway, but I'm doing it through the back door instead of the front door in Canada. Yet I can intervene in the U.S.

I just feel the Canadian government has been totally absent and I don't know why. It's the second most polluted air shed, and we're about to add all that extra U.S. pollution. Sumas II is one plant; there are 12 more on the drawing board.

Á (1155)

Right Hon. Herb Gray: Well, I want to reiterate that the commission is not an agency of the Canadian government, nor is it an agency of the American government.

Mr. Bob Mills: How do we get the cabinet to act on this, from your experience of 40 years in this place?

Right Hon. Herb Gray: Well, I think you have to be persistent. There's no single magic step. There's question period. There's the work of this committee, including asking ministers and officials to appear.

Mr. Bob Mills: Maybe I have to picket the Prime Minister's Office to get attention for this issue.

Right Hon. Herb Gray: I leave that to you. I'm not in the position to say what you should put on your sign or anything like that.

But we are very much aware of the concern. We're in direct contact with your mayors, and I hope your comments to this committee will help add to the weight. I repeat, as I said in writing to the mayors, if the two governments give us a formal reference, we'll be delighted to use the process that has helped bring about constructive change at the Red River--the north, for example.

I'm glad you've given me the chance to clarify our position in this regard.

The Chair: We'll go to our second round.

We have Monsieur Bigras, Monsieur Comartin, and then Mr. Szabo, Mr. Reed, Madame Kraft Sloan, and Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to join my colleagues in thanking our witnesses for being here, particularly Mr. Gray with whom we have had an opportunity to sit in the House of Commons. We are happy to see him back here today.

I have a question on navigation in the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway.

Last February 21, the US Department of Defence made public a project to enlarge the St. Lawrence Seaway. It would appear that a study began on January 15, 2001 the aim of which was to widen and deepen the seaway in order to increase shipping traffic on the St. Lawrence. That aim appears to be quite clear in the study. The intention is to increase profitability by allowing Panamax ships more than 1,000 feet in length to enter our waters. They are apparently already on Lake Superior.

Since governments can submit a request for approval of an undertaking to the International Joint Commission, what role do you intend to play in this project which, naturally, is only now being examined but which could very clearly have an impact not only on the economy but also on the environment by eroding the banks and stirring up the sediment?

What role do you think the International Joint Commission should be playing in the future widening of the seaway?

Right Hon. Herb Gray: We are following this proposal very closely. With respect to the Great Lakes, we hold public meetings in order to allow citizens to express their point of view. And we are now playing an official role. These public meetings have given people an opportunity to express their concerns about this study to the US Corps of Engineers.

I have met with Canada's Minister of Transport to express these concerns and discuss the issue.

You yourself stated that it was only a preliminary study being carried out by the Corps of Engineers. To date, neither the American nor the Canadian government has decided to undertake such a project and no budget has been allocated to continue the study.

I believe that our Minister of Transport and his American counterpart recently signed a cooperation agreement in this area. I believe that a Canadian spokesperson said that the intention was not to undertake a large scale project such as the one that you described, but simply to examine how the present St. Lawrence Seaway system can be improved when the time comes to do so.

As to your specific question, once again, if the governments give the joint commission a mandate to undertake formal studies, we will be happy to accept that responsibility. However, at this time, we do not have such a mandate. My personal take on this subject is that these are early days, as they say. You might want to ask Mr. Collenette or his officials to give you more information on this.

Â (1200)

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Gray, I agree with you. Given your vast experience, you know full well that when discussions are open, it means that the foot is in the door. That's what happened with anti-missile defence.

In my opinion, the reality is that the precautionary principle should have precedence in this case. I think that's the approach you should take. When the agreement you mentioned was announced on May 1 by the transportation minister, it was said that the agreement would make cooperation easier to ensure the long-term profitability of the Great Lakes—St. Lawrence Seaway system.

This position, which is contained in the release signed by the transportation minister on May 1^st last, does not exclude the possibility that, one day, the seaway will be widened, which will potentially have many consequences on the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes.

You have made a good presentation of 45 or 50 minutes in length to us today and I am in complete agreement with what you said, but we cannot neglect to address the fundamental issue, which is, as you said, to not waste any more time in addressing the problem of invasive species, even if this project is not turned down for now.

I want to make sure that you will continue to play your role of guardian, because we can't make empty promises and monitor our transborder environment from one ocean to the other. We have to protect the environment and not only focus on making the seaway profitable.

Right Hon. Herb Gray: Believe me, we will live up to our responsibilities under the International Boundary Waters Treaty. We will work within the framework set out under the International Boundary Waters Treaty, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement and the Canada-U.S. Air Quality Agreement.

We are not saying that our main priority is to make sure the seaway is navigable; it is one of our concerns. With regard to the environment, if you read our mission statement, you will see that the document indicates that we must respect the precautionary principle, as well as sustainable development and the various ecosystems. That is why we are keeping track of discussions on these matters. We have to stay up-to-date.

According to our information, the American Congress has not earmarked any money for the project, nor have our government or our Parliament.

Something very significant happened in the United States: a couple of months ago, Senator Hillary Clinton came out completely against the project. Just imagine how significant this is for the Americans.

I suggest you contact Mr. Collenette, not only because he is the Minister of Transport, but also because most of the locks are on Canadian territory and because the territory most affected falls under the responsibility of the Canadian government. That's another reason why we have asked this committee to follow this matter.

Â (1205)

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Bigras.

Mr. Comartin, please.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to Mr. Gray, Dr. Thomas, and the rest of the delegation. Thank you for coming.

I also wanted to acknowledge the presence of Mrs. Kraft Sloan and welcome her back to the committee. Her passion for the environment has been missing here. That's no reflection, Mr. Szabo, on you. You certainly contributed. But we missed her.

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I also wanted to take the opportunity to say I'm a bit concerned about the fact that this event is going on while the Minister of the Environment is making an announcement we were all invited to but that, of course, we couldn't go to because, more importantly, we had to be here on the species at risk legislation. I just wanted to note that for the record.

Also for the record, I want to take issue.... As you know, Mr. Gray and I are longtime opponents on a number of issues. I think I go back further with him than anybody else in this room. So for the record, I also I want to take issue with one of his statements in his presentation about the International Boundary WatersTreaty Act,in which he claimed that—

Right Hon. Herb Gray: Where are you in the statement?

Mr. Joe Comartin: You didn't number your pages, Mr. Gray, so I'm having some difficulty. I think it's the third page on the hard copy.

You claim that Bill C-6 had the effect of banning the removal of bulk water. I think it's very clearly the position of a number of people, including experts on trade legislation, that in fact it's a licensing system to export water.

This isn't in any way to reflect on Mr. Gray, because I think I clearly know and support his position, which is to prohibit the bulk export of water. But I am concerned, Mr. Chair, about the position of his American counterpart, as a result of a conversation I had with him shortly before he was appointed as the joint chair of the IJC. He referred to water as a commodity. Of course, when one has any appreciation of our treaties and trading arrangements, the use of that term to describe water is of extreme concern, because if it is a commodity, then it is subject to both the WTO and NAFTA, and it could be exported, or its export could be forced.

Those are all by way of comments.

Just this week, Great Lakes United issued a report based on its coordination of a great number of environmental groups on both sides of the border. I think there were 170 community environmental groups involved in the publication of this document. I am going to suggest to you, Mr. Gray, that this document sets out a framework for what we have to do in Canada and the United States to clean up and protect the Great Lakes.

I have two questions. One, if you've seen this document, are you generally in support of its recommendations? Flowing from that question, can we see similar recommendations coming from the IJC and, in particular, specific timetables and specific amounts of money that need to be spent to do the remedial work and protect the Great Lakes?

Right Hon. Herb Gray: I welcome the green book report of Great Lakes United and allied groups. It basically supports and confirms the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the commission about the need for a better or more effective management and accountability structure for action to clean up the Great Lakes, and for a timetable for the attribution of greater amounts of funds. I look forward to discussing the report with Great Lakes United and allied groups. It reiterates and supports the conculsions of the International Joint Commission. The Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development reports to the House of Commons, and the General Accounting Office for the U.S. is the equivalent to our Office of the Auditor General of Canada and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. They issued a report recently saying that there were important needs for a more effective management structure, more funds, and timetables.

With respect to the commission itself, I think the green book generally echoes what we said, not only in the 11th biennial report but also in a more recent report talking about the status of restoration activities in each of the hot spots, or the remaining 42 areas of concern.

After the major meeting in September in Ann Arbor, which I have invited everyone to, the commission will begin working on its next biennial report. I'm sure the green book will be a major source of information for it.

We can report more frequently. We're not limited to doing so twice a year, and we'll have to examine as a commission whether we have to say things before our next biennial report comes out.

I wanted to say something about your comments on Bill C-6. It's my understanding that its practical effect is not to permit the removal of water in bulk from the Canadian side of the Great Lakes Basin—in fact, from any of the water basins along the boundary illustrated on this map. There may be exceptions for emergency purposes, and so on. Whatever my new American counterpart may have said to you in private conversation, the commission represents the consensus views of all six commissioners, and it has not taken the view that water is a commodity capable of entering into commerce, as provided for by other agreements. An exception, of course, would be removals of small quantities for bottled water, and so on, which is a different matter.

I also want to say that it's my understanding that the American states bordering on the Great Lakes generally have the same views as the Canadian government and the provinces involved, that there should not be bulk water removals. They operate under a different legislative structure. Apparently there's federal legislation that can delegate to states the authority to make a contract on a matter that may otherwise be under federal jurisdiction. They are negotiating such a contract, which I think is called Annex 2001. Hopefully, they'll have that completed in the year 2004, and I'm sure we will welcome that work.

So one point of reassurance is that, as far as I know, the American states bordering on the Great Lakes do not favour removal of water in bulk from the Great Lakes, whether by pipeline, tanker, and so on. But they're operating under a different legislative and constitutional framework involving the negotiation of this compact. I guess that's the easiest way to explain it. I personally would welcome that work being completed as soon as possible.

Â (1210)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Szabo, please.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'd certainly like to put my first welcome to the Right Honourable Herb Gray. It's a pleasure to see you back here, Mr. Gray, with your fellow témoins.

I have two questions for you as a group. The International Joint Commission has been in existence since 1909, and part of its mandate is to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the programs, etc., as they relate to the maintenance of the health of the Great Lakes. I can only presume that the deterioration and crisis we have in the Great Lakes right now has occurred during the period in which the IJC has been in existence.

I find it very interesting that Mr. Thomas would raise SARS, mad cow disease, and their economic impact. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the House of Commons has had emergency debates on both subjects. Yet we have not had an emergency debate on this subject, notwithstanding the economic dimensions Mr. Thomas raised and the related health implications in the tens of billions of dollars—with the potential of costing way beyond that.

I guess the question is, how bad does this situation have to get with regard to the Great Lakes before the IJC makes it a national or a North American emergency, rather than waiting for bilateral references, and in fact goes to seek those bilateral references?

The second question has to do with an apparent contradiction in terms of current policy. There are now basically voluntary guidelines for dealing with incoming ships and their ballast, rather than mandatory regulations. It would appear to me that to sustain a situation where there are only voluntary guidelines is to compromise the objectives of the IJC for some other reason. Could that reason be the protection of the economic benefit that would be forgone if we were to have mandatory regulations?

Â (1215)

The Chair: Mr. Gray.

Right Hon. Herb Gray: You covered a number of very important topics.

You speak of the deterioration and crisis in the Great Lakes. We have to be balanced here. Since the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement has gone into effect there has been general overall improvement in the Great Lakes, particularly with respect to sewage systems and so on, or the lack of them. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on both sides in improving the sewage treatment facilities and so on. That has improved Great Lakes water quality.

There has also been improvement in control of chemicals, particularly phosphorus. It's like saying something is sweet and sour. There are positive aspects, but there are still problem aspects; for example, the slowness in the cleanup—which is very expensive—of contaminated sediment, what's left over from the early days of industrial development.

Also, there is backsliding. The phosphorus is coming back into Lake Erie, and we are supporting a binational task force of scientists to figure out why that's happening. Is it happening because of the factory farms, where there is a lot of phosphorus in the feed for the animals and there is runoff? Is it happening because the zebra mussels' digestive systems create phosphorus? Scientists don't have complete answers, but they're working on it urgently. So there's backsliding.

Another factor is that there are new families of chemicals that were not taken into account when the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was signed: different kinds of endocrine disrupters; the fire retardants, which have a good purpose in not allowing household furniture to burst into flames but, if they get into the waters, create new problems; and other matters of that nature.

So one can never cease being vigilant. One can never say, as of today we've cleaned up the lakes; let's forget about it and go on to something else. We will always, because of the effect of man on the ecosystem of which we are a part, have to be vigilant and active.

Now, with respect to a reference, we are seeking a reference. We have called on the governments formally to give us a reference to coordinate all aspects of the fight against alien species. That's why we're here: to ask for your support, just as the fisheries committee has given its support.

What is happening is that there are bits and pieces of work on alien species going on in a number of departments. Nominally, I think the environment department is supposed to take the lead, although you could argue this would be even better in the hands of Fisheries and Oceans. I don't want to cause any interdepartmental controversy, but you need a management structure, as pointed out by our academic friends very effectively, to bring all this work together and to implement it, including such things as a faster action response mechanism.

I'm not sure one can argue that mandatory regulations cause economic benefits to be forgone; the Americans are living with them. If the navigation system has problems, they're not related to the cost of ballast water removal or inspections, as far as I'm aware. It is true that the shipping on the Great Lakes is a very important economic factor, beneficial to the economies of the American and Canadian communities around the lakes. There are jobs involved. There are industries involved. You can also argue that one of the most environmentally sound ways of moving goods is by ship, compared with, let's say, the diesel trucks that Mr. Comartin and I are very much—

Â (1220)

Mr. Joe Comartin: Not as good as trains.

Right Hon. Herb Gray: Well, I know. We'll have to come back to discussing trains.

The Chair: Could we focus on the question, please?

Right Hon. Herb Gray: Okay, I'm going to bring my remarks to a conclusion.

There are no public policies in which there aren't some contradictions, but mandatory guidelines are a step that has to be taken.

I'll just end with this brief comment. It is my understanding that the federal government is working on drafting regulations to replace the mandatory guidelines, but I don't think you could argue that the timetable for creating the mandatory regulations is proceeding at a pace this committee would agree with.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Reed, followed by Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to you all. Of course, a very special welcome to my former colleague, Herb Gray.

I have three questions. I'm going to zero in on this obviously very serious problem of ballast water. I'll ask the three questions, and it's open to anybody.

First of all, is mid-ocean exchange considered sufficient?

Second, is there any technology available for purifying or otherwise cleaning ballast water?

Third, have any alternatives to ballast water been looked at? I remind everyone that in days past—in history—ballast was solid ballast. I also would remind us that we do an exchange of containers when we have container ships going across the ocean, back and forth. Has there been any notion explored about using solid ballast on an exchange basis?

Right Hon. Herb Gray: I'm going to ask Dr. Krantzberg to assist me, but I'm going to try to deal with your questions briefly, Mr. Chairman, in reverse order.

First of all, there is a lot of research going on in the areas you've talked about. I'd ask Dr. Krantzberg to comment on whether there is any effort to look at solid ballast rather than water, but there again it's a matter, speaking as a layman, of technology. Ships in the Great Lakes will come to Windsor and discharge cargo. They would then have to put something back in there to keep the ship trimmed and balanced.

It may be that from the point of view of technology or economy, filling up the holds with or discharging water is the most effective way. Also, as a layman I have to say one couldn't assume that solid ballast would be any cleaner than water. All sorts of things could be in solid ballast. Look at the sediment we're worried about in the Great Lakes.

Second of all, there's a lot of work going on in different technologies to deal with what's in the ballast water and the sludge underneath it in the holds: there's ultraviolet technology; there's biocide technology; there's heat technology. Nothing as yet, I think, has been conclusively defined as the best answer—and also, on how to apply it.

I understand the International Maritime Organization is working on an international convention on these matters. You might want to look into that further.

So there is work on technologies of the kinds I've mentioned, and the reason is that a mid-ocean exchange is not sufficient. Even if you've changed the water—even if you don't have any ballast—the way the ships are built, with nooks and crannies, there's always a little water left. There's always some kind of sludge, and in that water and sludge there could be larvae, fry, actual creatures. When you have to take on more ballast, even if it's fresh water in the Great Lakes, this stuff can get mixed together.

Â (1225)

The Chair: Let's give Dr. Krantzberg a chance, and possibly a compressed one.

Dr. Gail Krantzberg (Director, Great Lakes Regional Office, International Joint Commission): Very briefly, the answer to the question whether mid-ocean exchange is sufficient is a simple no; it's not. We were talking about the mandatory guidelines. Most of the vessels with ballast that come into the Great Lakes comply with those guidelines, but it's the NOBOBs that are the real problem, and it's the sludges that contain the organisms. Mid-ocean exchange is not the answer. We're really worried mostly about the sludge that comes in with the NOBOBs.

As for the technologies for cleaning ballast, there are a lot of bench-scale and pilot-scale tests going on, which Mr. Gray referred to. The difficulty we have in the Great Lakes is having the vessels available for full-scale testing. That's one thing governments could try to encourage the maritime industry to help with. They're often used for a day or two days, and then they have to move on from port to port, so the length of time to test technologies onboard, full-scale, has been limited.

On the matter of solid ballast, I don't think I really need to add to what Mr. Gray said. If we are talking about solids, we are still talking about plant material, sea material, bedding material, animal residues, and various other life stages being available from that source as well.

I think the real solution is technologies for NOBOBs. That's what we really need: technologies to clean the sediment in the NOBOBs.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reed.

Madame Kraft Sloan, please.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York North, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's a real delight to be back here on the environment committee. I want to thank my colleague for welcoming me back.

Also, it's good to see you, Mr. Gray. I always had a sympathetic ear on some of the environmental issues we were pushing.

Mr. Thomas, we've worked together on projects in the past, and the other witnesses.

The question I want to ask you, Mr. Gray, has to do with the reference to invasive species. A number of members have asked you questions about it as well as other questions. I'm more concerned with, if you get the reference, when you get the reference, what actually happens. Could you expand on that, the role of the IJC in involving the other governments? What does this really mean when you achieve that reference?

Right Hon. Herb Gray: First of all, the budgets of the commission come from the two governments. We're not self-financing. Our ongoing budget does not have a component for programs. It's basically for people like Dr. Krantzberg and Dr. Clamen, based in our regional office for the Great Lakes in Windsor and our offices in Ottawa and Washington.

When we get a reference, in short, a cheque has to accompany it. Assuming we get our reference and the funding, the first thing we do is design a program, basically through setting up an expert board where officials and experts from both countries would work in their own capacities to set up an agreed-on consensus, fact-finding and scientific basis. We then hold public hearings and we develop reports.

Where there's a permanent reference, as is the case that authorizes, under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the work of the Great Lakes office and our staff in both Ottawa and Washington, we would probably have to have a different mechanism, some type of management or coordinating office.

At the present time there's nothing like this in the Canadian government. There are, in all fairness, people working on bits and pieces at the federal labs in Burlington, for example, or other areas. What's missing is a coordinated management and oversight structure that will put to the best use in an urgent way what's going on and add to it as required.

Because of the success in monitoring the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, we have called on the governments to give us a reference on alien invasive species. I won't go into detail on what should be in the reference, but I would say that there would have to be obviously an organizational structure set up. There would have to be a joint implementation plan.

We think we would be a binational organization, which has credibility. I think our colleague Professor Thomas mentioned the Migratory Birds Treaty. The International Joint Commission's International Boundary Waters Treaty goes back even further--1909--and that's even before my time around here.

Â (1230)

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: If I may, I have a very short question to the other witnesses.

I was just looking at essentially the first paragraph on page 5, and you talked about a number of acts that would require amendments. Are you talking about an omnibus piece of legislation that would amend these acts? You say that this would be a better route to go as opposed to introducing a new act. That's what you're referring to, an omnibus piece of legislation then.

Prof. Vernon Thomas: Yes. If we take as an example the number of parliamentary sessions it took to get an Endangered Species Act through, would we want to go that same route for something dealing with invasive species? I would hope not. Perhaps it is to an academic easier to amend something involving a broadening of definitions as opposed to trying to create a totally new piece of legislation. That is what we're saying.

Those definitions in those acts are perhaps not current in light of what we see as real problems in the Great Lakes. In the spirit of those acts, we feel it is possible to broaden the definition in such a way as to create provision for management.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: In broadening the definition of those acts, are there not operational sections of the acts that would have to be attended to as well in order to provide enabling work that has to be done?

Prof. Vernon Thomas: I am not competent in that area, but I would presume so, yes, in the sense that you would have to have a broadening of the rationale, the spirit of the preamble, as well as a broadening of the definitions in the actual regulations of the act.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: That's my final question on that. So there are three aspects on those things.

Thank you.

Right Hon. Herb Gray: I have a very brief comment. Professor Thomas' colleague has illustrated gaps in a number of pieces of legislation. However, I want to point out that neither the International Boundary Waters Treaty nor the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement defines pollution as dealing only with chemicals. The treaty itself speaks of pollution but is not limited to chemical pollution. In fact, with the help of Dr. Krantzberg, if you look at annex 6 to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, it talks about a review of pollution from shipping sources:

Review of practices and procedures regarding waste water and their deleterious effect on water quality, including, as required, studies to determine if live fish or invertebrates in ballast water discharges into the Great Lakes System constitute a threat to the System;

which we found is very much the case.

I'm not saying that typing up definitions wouldn't be useful. I think it would, but I just want to add that when it comes to the Boundary Waters Treaty and the supporting Boundary Waters Act, I don't think that's where the work has to be focused. There are the other areas mentioned.

Also, it has been suggested to me that there are sections in the existing Fisheries Act, section 42, that might be invoked to ban imported sale of live fish or live species. I'd have to ask somebody else to deal with that. You may want to get an answer on that from your own research staff.

The Chair: Thank you.

Before we start the second round after Mr. Tonks and the chair's questions, I have the impression that Dr. Thomas had in mind to make a brief intervention in a reply to one of the three questions placed by Mr. Reed, who cannot stay for the second round of questions because of another commitment, in which case I give you the floor.

Â (1235)

Prof. Vernon Thomas: That was with the issue of whether mid-ocean ballast exchange is sufficient.

The problem you have with a fully loaded cargo vessel is that there is very little room for ballast to be taken on board, and the International Maritime Organization has opined that mid-ocean ballast water exchange is very dangerous, to use their own words, and that is why ballast is normally taken on in coastal or estuarine regions.

However, if there were to be a saline flushing of empty ballast tanks, that would be a small help to a moderate level of help in the sense that you would take the residual amount of fresh water that is in those so-called empty tanks and expose it to a saline environment. At the same time, flushing in mid-water of anchor chains could be undertaken. It would promote a little more rust but then that is part of the business of doing shipping.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reed.

Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for your presentations today. I found them most informative and, in another way, quite perplexing in terms of the degree of challenge we face and the appearance of a slow momentum in achieving some of the objectives of Great Lakes water cleanup, and so on.

I have three questions.

On the line of questioning with respect to ballast, you have indicated changes in the legislation and the terminology dealing with that. You've also equated that to the sense of urgency with respect to biological content of the ballast tanks and the impact on the freshwater system.

Is there any role that we could play? I appreciate the frustrations of looking at new technologies, but it seems to me there's a matter of great urgency. Is there any way we could back the IJC up in terms of the implementation of new technologies? You mentioned ultraviolet. These days there must be better ways, through the flushing, to treat the effluent that comes from the tanks.

Secondly, with respect to areas of concern, the chairman from time to time has said, you know, partnerships and indicators are great words and concepts, but nothing replaces timetables. In the areas of concern, is there a prioritization with respect to benchmarking against the threat to community health, however you may define that? Do you intend to bring forward a strategic plan, if you will, based on those areas of concern and the prioritization of them, and the onus on governments and the private sector to have a chronology with respect to cleaning up those areas of concern against a measurable timetable?

My third question is a matter of process that I'd like to take up with the chairman. That is, you have expressed requests for action on the part of this committee and on the part of the government, so my question to the chairman is--and I'm looking for some instruction--what do you see that we should be doing with this presentation in terms of taking those requests and putting them into the work program of the committee?

Thank you.

Prof. Vernon Thomas: With respect to timetables and so on, remember, I'm an academic, so I have no real power to suggest to governments anything. But it would make sense to me that as a government we would say, the United States has embarked upon this timetable to bring in this legislation and to achieve these goals by these sorts of dates; as co-managers of the Great Lakes and that ecosystem, it would seem reasonable to me that we would endeavour to match their timetable.

I think it is not responsible on the part of a sovereign state to say, well, yes, the United States appears to be doing a good job doing the salinity tests at the locks; let's consider having them do it all along. I think we have to be in a situation where we develop our capacity at the same level and at the same pace as the United States.

So insofar as the United States feels that they can bring forth their legislation and implement these stages for fast action response and ballast water control in the next few years, we should attempt to imitate that, particularly for fast action response. We have the capacity in terms of agency personnel--perhaps not well coordinated to do it.

With respect to your last question on what this committee can do, my suggestion--perhaps a naive suggestion, being an academic--is that this is an issue that clearly cuts across several departments: Transport, Fisheries and Oceans, Environment, and perhaps one could even extend it to International Trade. It would seem that very good action of a committee could be to try to harmonize an approach across federal departments and recognize that in dealing effectively with responding to an invasion, certain aspects of that response are going to fall very much upon the capacity of Fisheries and Oceans, particularly to implement eradication programs. Other capacities from, for example, Environment Canada could be very well brought into that, as in the case of identifying those organisms with enormous precision. We can do that today--perhaps the idea of environment taking upon itself the role of creating the biological database that one uses as the reference for some particular invasive species identification.

That is where I see a certain level of collaboration being recommended from this committee.

Â (1240)

Right Hon. Herb Gray: I want to add that I'm informed that in the United States there is something called the U.S. Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, which I gather, Dr. Krantzberg, operates at the federal level.

Dr. Gail Krantzberg: It has members from the states and the federal government, and it is managed through the Great Lakes Commission.

Right Hon. Herb Gray: Which is based in Ann Arbor.

Dr. Gail Krantzberg: That's right.

Right Hon. Herb Gray: We have asked for a reference to coordinate, and so on, but there are other models. There could be a coordinating office in the federal government, but to be effective, there has to be some type of binational linkage, either using the model of the Migratory Birds Convention or the model of the International Joint Commission, or something separate, although I suppose, to avoid the overlap, perhaps our idea that the IJC could do the coordinating might be the best use of funds, time, and people.

Dr. Gail Krantzberg: If I may make a quick comment on the question about areas of concern and strategic plans, putting the onus on governments and the private sector--for example, municipalities--to have a timeline, in fact in the report that Chairman Gray mentioned earlier, the April report on areas of concern, one of the specific recommendations was that the governments should provide the commission with a schedule for the development of restoration targets for these areas of concern and to report on the restoration of impaired water quality uses by a certain date. So we have called on governments to prioritize areas for cleanup, to set schedules and targets for cleanup. The commission has asked for that and we are now awaiting the response of the two federal.... Well, we recently received a response from the U.S. government to that recommendation. We're awaiting the Canadian response, and we'll share that with the public.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Just to make an observation on that last point, Mr. Chairman, I've heard you state this to the OECD people with respect to timetables for response, remediation, and accountability. I guess that's where I'm leading. You haven't heard from our jurisdiction.

You've mentioned the U.S. Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. I don't believe we have any equivalent to that. I've never heard this issue discussed at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I guess that's the leading question into a discussion at this committee as to how we can tighten that up and get responses back and somehow close the accountability loop in terms of, once we have a timetable, monitoring it and taking action on a regular basis.

That is the question I had of you, Mr. Chairman. We could perhaps discuss amongst the committee members how we could involve ourselves in that kind of accountability mode.

Thank you very much. I appreciate those responses.

Â (1245)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

Before we start the second round, I would simply like to indicate to members of this committee that, of course, members are in a position to put forward a motion through the normal procedure for the examination of this committee and discussion. We will meet again probably next Tuesday, hopefully, if one of the witnesses agrees.

Before we start with that or at the end of the meeting, we could certainly discuss possible motions in support of a number of the items that have been raised by our witnesses today.

Secondly, I would like to ask Dr. Thomas, in relation to the conclusion of his excellent paper, whether he is aware of any initiative being taken at the present time by a government department in introducing an amendment that would achieve the desired result.

Prof. Vernon Thomas: Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of any. I've asked the director general of Environment Canada who is dealing with the issue of alien invasive species, but I've not had an answer to that specific question.

The Chair: Could I ask, Mr. Gray, whether the government has been asked by the IJC to match, so to speak, the national aquatic invasive species program on the Canadian side and whether any initiative has been taken to generate some action on the part of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans?

Right Hon. Herb Gray: Well, we set out at pages 42 and 43 of our 11th biannual report specific recommendations, and certainly they involved not only regulations of the kind the members have already called for, and the research that has been mentioned, but also a management structure to coordinate and harmonize binational efforts for action to stop the ongoing threat to the economy and biological integrity of the Great Lakes that is created by alien species.

The Chair: May I ask, Mr. Gray, whether the government has replied to the recommendations contained in the 11th biannual report?

Right Hon. Herb Gray: The've just replied, and they say they'd like to consider the matter of reference further and discuss it further. We have not yet received a formal response from the Canadian government, but if we have one from the American government, I think the Canadian response, based on past experience, is not too far behind.

The Chair: When that reply has been received, could it be made available to the members of this committee?

Right Hon. Herb Gray: Yes, it would be a public document. In fact, I think the American response that just came out is a public document and it is on the appropriate website, which your staff can identify for you. I have a copy here but I don't have additional copies.

The Chair: We can circulate whatever you have, which would help us in the discussion of possible motions.

Right Hon. Herb Gray: I think, just as a suggestion to your staff, you would want to find out more about this task force in the United States, how it works and who's on it. You'll also want to look at the National Invasive Species Act that they have there and where it stands in terms of operation. I think it has to be renewed and funded. Then of course, shortly, I hope, we'll get a response from our Canadian government, which you may want to follow up with hearings and so on.

Â (1250)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gray.

In your presentation today, one section, which was not read because of lack of time, deals with indicators. That is a subject in which some members of this committee are very interested, and some will take up your call for support.

My question to you is on the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which in essence aims at the illusive goal of zero discharge. Would you like to comment on that?

Right Hon. Herb Gray: Well, it remains a goal. Without working toward and achieving zero discharge, the threats to human health from toxic chemicals and metals remain. So it's certainly an objective we believe should be pursued and followed.

Timetables are never easy, particularly if they require a commitment of funds, but as Dr. Krantzberg has pointed out, certainly with respect to the worst spots in the Great Lakes, we have called for specific timetables and detailed plans where they are missing. We have put in that report a detailed matrix chart comparing each hot spot to the other and we are working now with the two governments to turn that chart into a living website.

So zero discharge, as I say, referring to your point, remains something we believe should be worked toward.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gray.

For a second round, Mr. Mills.

Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you. I have two very brief questions.

First of all, I guess I'd like a report card on...it seems we've talked about zebra mussels forever. As long as I can remember we've been talking about those kinds of invasive species, and I wonder, just because they have been around so long, how the government is doing dealing with that sort of thing. Where are we at?

Secondly--I should have mentioned this earlier--one of the first things the Governor of Washington showed me, he said, “Let's go down to the Seattle harbour. I want to show you some raw sewage. That's yours”.

Of course, the sewage outlet from Victoria is very close to the Canada-U.S. border and it washes up on a daily basis on their shore. It would seem to me that again this would be an area that a Canadian-U.S. commission should be dealing with, and I can't believe the U.S. hasn't asked for that to happen. It certainly was their number one issue. When I started talking about air, they started talking about sewage.

Right Hon. Herb Gray: Well, I should remind myself and the committee that the commission deals only with fresh water that forms or crosses the boundary. We get close to salt water; for example, we have an interest in the estuary of the St. Croix River. That river forms the boundary between New Brunswick and Maine. We have an interest in the estuary of the St. Lawrence. We're having this major study of our control orders and we have to look at the St. Lawrence right down to salt water.

But Victoria is not on fresh water. It's on ocean water. If they wanted to amend the treaty to give us some jurisdiction in saltwater areas, again, we would take up the challenge.

Certainly you raised an important point. Hopefully some of the new federal infrastructure programs may be available to Victoria on a partnership basis to help deal with that, because I think you raised an important point.

As to a report card on alien species, I don't think there is any technology developed as yet to get rid of the zebra mussels. The only thing that can be done is--and it's an expensive way--to scrape them off the water intake pipes or off the beaches, and so on. There is research going on, but I'm not aware of any technology that would get rid of them, unlike the case with the sea lamprey, where the Great Lakes Fishery Commission developed technologies that have reduced the sea lamprey to a level such that native stocks have rebounded, which had been largely destroyed by the sea lamprey.

Here's another case where vigilance is required indefinitely, and I note that members of this committee and others have been calling on the federal government to maintain the budgets of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, especially the sea lamprey program. That fits in with my call for vigilance.

Â (1255)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To begin, I would like to reassert the fact that we must be vigilant with regard to the memorandum of cooperation signed on May 1 by Mr. Mineta and Mr. Collenette. I think that it contains major threats to the environment and that the committee will have to monitor this issue closely.

An analysis was carried out for the Board of Technical Experts. I don't know if you are aware of this organization, which brings together representatives from both governments. In its conclusion, the analysis said, and I quote:

...it is time that the American and Canadian federal governments fund a new study dealing not only with the widening of the seaway, but also with alternative solutions which are gentler and more durable.

What do you think of this analysis and this recommendation, Mr. Gray? Do you agree?

Right Hon. Herb Gray: Unfortunately, I am not familiar with this commission of experts. Can you give me a copy of your document? This binational office of experts falls under which...

Mr. Bernard Bigras: It's an office which has representatives from both governments, as well as researchers.

I would like to know whether you think there should be a new study dealing not with the widening of the St. Lawrence Seaway, but on alternative solutions which are more gentle and more durable. Do you think that would be the right approach to take?

Right Hon. Herb Gray: I have to look at the report. I haven't read it yet. If you give me a copy, I will be able to respond in writing. You're referring to an office which has representatives from both governments. As you know, there are many such groups. I apologize that I am not aware of that report.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I have another question. In a statement that he made, Mr. Michael Douglas, of the NGO called Lake Ontario Keeper, concluded that the review, in terms of infrastructure, contained major economic and environmental weaknesses. He also added that time was running out and that we should give an independent body the task of identifying new solutions with regard to marine transportation on the navigable waters of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Do you think that time is running out? I am convinced that you will tell me that, indeed, time is running out, but do you think that we should give an independent body the task of finding new, alternative solutions to marine transportation?

Right Hon. Herb Gray: The International Joint Commission, which is an independent body, has carried out such studies in the past. If we made a formal request, it would be ready to take on that type of work.

Furthermore, given that we are talking about alternatives to marine trade, you should ask these experts to appear before this committee. They would tell you what is more advantageous from an economic point of view for the Great Lakes system and also address other issues.

In fact, there has been marine transportation on the Great Lakes for hundreds of years, but the St. Lawrence Seaway only came into existence at the beginning of the 1960s.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: But surely you realize that widening the seaway will have an impact on the Port of Montreal and on Montreal's economy.

Right Hon. Herb Gray: Let me say that the International St. Lawrence River Board of Control is in close contact with the Montreal Port Authority to ensure that the quality of the water in the Port of Montreal is good enough to meet the needs of international vessels.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I have a final question for the witnesses from the university, namely Mr. Thomas.

Apparently Panamax's vessels, which are 1,000 feet long, are now navigating on Lake Superior. Given the potential environmental repercussions and the presence of invasive species, do you think that widening the seaway to accommodate these vessels is a long-term solution? In your opinion, how would this affect the problem of invasive species?

· (1300)

Right Hon. Herb Gray: According to the experts, if the canals are made deeper to accommodate the Panamax vessels so they reach the Great Lakes, that will affect water levels. Furthermore, the ecosystems will also be greatly affected. That's why we have to be extremely careful and conduct in-depth studies with regard to this possibility.

Mr. Bernard Bigras: My question was for Mr. Thomas.

[English]

The Chair: Dr. Thomas.

Prof. Vernon Thomas: Yes. The only thing I can refer to here is that if there is a deleterious impact upon habitats of fish and other freshwater organisms created by changing water levels, changing water composition, then already the provisions of the Fisheries Act enable us to make a protestation. If there is no ongoing treatment of ballast waters, if we still have voluntary compliance proceeding into the future, then we have grounds for concern of increased rates of introduction of exotics into the Great Lakes. If there is a series of mandatory regulations brought into effect for both the Canadian and the American governments that require all no-ballast-on-board vessels to undertake treatment of residual ballast water, that particular concern would be minimized or lowered.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Bigras.

Mr. Comartin, Madame Kraft Sloan, Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: As just a quick response on the water export, my last information was that all eight of the Great Lake states in fact wanted to substantially increase the amount of water that was being exported, and that proposal was only stopped by the federal governments at both levels.

But I have a question to Dr. Thomas or Ms. Vasarhelyi. We have the emerald ash borer in Essex County, which came in, as best we can determine, in a shipping crate. It's destroying all of the ash. There's a compulsory order now that all ash trees in Essex County be cut and destroyed as an attempt to destroy that. We've now built what they're calling a fire break just about at the county line between ourselves and Kent County. The problem we're now being faced with is this. Because the ash borer is in southern Michigan as well, the fear is--in fact, it's beyond a fear as they're almost certain this is going to happen--that recreational boats will bring it across behind that fire break.

I have two questions. One, in terms of existing legislation, what would have to be amended to govern this, so that we could have proper testing of crates coming in to be able to ascertain it? I don't know of anything at this point that does that.

And two, would the fast action response methodology, the Australian experience that you used as an example, be able to be deployed along that fire break to make sure that in fact it's effective?

Ms. Charlotte Vasarhelyi: The first part I can go over. As far as legislation is concerned--the food inspection act could be used for the crates, I believe.

Mr. Joe Comartin: We don't know the crate was bringing in food. We think it might have been bringing in other types of commercial things. We're almost certain it wasn't food.

Ms. Charlotte Vasarhelyi: Okay, well, if it wasn't food, then I'm not sure what could be used.

Prof. Vernon Thomas: Yes, the issue of material coming in, associated with shipping, as crates, as packaging, is really serious. Dr. Hugh MacIsaac has already indicated that just random sampling of packaging crates will indicate that the greenwood they use may contain significant numbers of exotic larval species and adult species that could potentially be problematic. The legislation we have referred to today may not be appropriate for dealing with that type of material unless there were some provision under the Canada Shipping Act to deal with material associated with the importation of cargo.

At this point in time, it is reasonable to expect that dried seaweed used as shipping protective material could be eliminated; that wooden pallets could be substituted for by metal pallets without any great economic hardship. I think we would have to look at a different set of regulations than the ones that we addressed here for invasive aquatic species.

With respect to the firewall, it's essentially how fast you have to run to catch the horse after the stable door has been opened. This is where, once it has established itself over a wide area, your fast response capacity is essentially of minimal value.

If you have a capacity to monitor and detect early, then that is when your fast capacity response is going to be effective. The example that Charlotte gave of the striped mussel in Australia is very good, because within three days the answer was given. Respond. Eradicate. Quarantine. And within 27 to 26 days, they had eradicated that pest in those relatively small geographic areas.

Another example would involve an introduced species in California a few years ago. Again, there was a fast response action that resulted in the eradication of that mat of species in a relatively short time, in less than a month. It worked because detection was early and the invasion was geographically very limited so your fast response fire curtain could be deployed immediately with a measure of success.

· (1305)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Could I just ask our witnesses if they have any jurisdiction in this area or if they're doing anything on the emerald borer?

Dr. Gail Krantzberg: If I could comment, on the fast response—this is just to follow up before I answer the question directly—what you're facing in that region of the Laurentian-Great Lakes is something on the order of 100 million ash trees in the state of Michigan alone, let alone the thousands or tens of thousands that are infected right now in the Essex region. In essence, the firewall and even a pilot test, a plot test, of a pesticide--and this is of a broadband pesticide that would kill the adult--is something that ought to be looked at as a very serious risk management measure. The horse is getting out of the stable now. It's not completely out, so it's possible to stop it.

The IJC on this matter really doesn't have any jurisdiction that is much different from its commentary on the import of invasive species from any vector.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Dr. Krantzberg, if I could interrupt, what I was really thinking about was whether there is any jurisdiction, because it's not an aquatic species.

Dr. Gail Krantzberg: Well, I do know that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is doing a tremendous amount of research in Guelph on technologies—chemicals and insecticides and other technologies for destroying the beetle. I think if you were to look at an agency, that is probably where it would be centred, and Agriculture Canada as well. Those two agencies would probably be the lead.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As a last point of information, with regard to the 160 species that we now know are in the Great Lakes, have there been remediation efforts that have measurable impact? Also, what would be the outside number we might expect if in fact we have migration from the southern states or continued migration in from other sources?

Right Hon. Herb Gray: I'll begin a reply and ask Dr. Krantzberg to assist. Hopefully there will be time for our friends from the University of Guelph to talk as well.

The greatest success story is the sea lamprey. It hasn't been eliminated, but it has been reduced through a number of programs, use of chemicals, attacks on the breeding capacity of the sea lamprey. Don't ask me to explain in detail how that works, but apparently it does. So the species it has largely destroyed have come back in large measure. That's the most successful program that I'm aware of, and hopefully it can be continued at the same level.

I'm going to ask Dr. Krantzberg to speak about other programs.

The zebra mussel we've already discussed. They haven't come up with a program. I think this illustrates the breadth of the problem in question.

· (1310)

Dr. Gail Krantzberg: I have very little to add. The sea lamprey is probably the singular only good news story in terms of control strategies. There have been some modest claims that the control on purple loosestrife has been successful, but that's uncertain right now.

The projections for the future should be no different from what they currently are. As long as these NOBOBs keep coming in, we should expect another invader every year.

Prof. Vernon Thomas: Yes. I cannot add much to that. I endorse the view that the sea lamprey has been the pre-eminent success. One also must admit that is over quite a large number of years and a very large number of millions of dollars on both the Canadian and the American side.

Very clearly, our successes are limited and our expenditures are enormous. We can imagine the expenditures and the success rate to go down, depending upon the lifestyle of these individual species. Where you have sexually breeding species being introduced, if we have a relatively small number of, let's say, males in Lake Ontario and females in Lake Erie, you do not have much of a problem. But where you have species of invertebrates that are able to reproduce in a non-sexual mode, then the potential for exponential increase is there. Those are the sorts of problems that very often defy ready, widespread solutions.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

Last but not least, Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This is a more riding-specific question, Mr. Gray. Lake Simcoe is located in my riding. Part of my riding borders on part of the lake. Since 1993 when I was elected, I've tried to find funding to help improve the quality of water in Lake Simcoe. However, there are no really substantial federal hooks. The conservation authority, for example, has responsibility for administering aspects of the Fisheries Act, and again, there are very limited opportunities. We found minimal amounts of funding.

I've also spoken with the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development on this, and the problem is, because Lake Simcoe is not necessarily considered a boundary waterway, it makes it very difficult for the federal government to participate.

However, it is part of the Great Lakes Basin. While I know there isn't a lot of funding, or we certainly could have more funding for the remedial action programs, could you or perhaps the other witnesses provide advice on how we might go about identifying Lake Simcoe as an area of concern?

Right Hon. Herb Gray: First of all, this is kind of a technical response, but the way the treaty is written and administered, just because a stream is a tributary and flows into say, Lake Ontario, it doesn't bring it totally under the jurisdiction of the commission.

An example is the Ottawa River, outside here. We have some interest in what's known as the freshet of the Ottawa River, where it goes into the St. Lawrence, but we do not deal with the Ottawa River all the way up to its headwaters. That's the way the treaty is interpreted. So even though eventually the water in Lake Simcoe goes into the Great Lakes, that doesn't give us any oversight role.

However, I would suggest that pressure on the provincial government would be a place to start. Maybe there will be a new provincial government in a few months, who can say? Secondly, the municipalities around Lake Simcoe may qualify for funding under the federal infrastructure programs. That would be a partnership with the province and, of course, with their own resources. I would encourage you to assist your constituents in exploring the relevant federal infrastructure programs, including the green infrastructure program run by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which I'm sure Mr. Tonks continues to be very familiar with.

· (1315)

Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan: Actually, Mr. Gray, we have gone that route, and there is a new sewage treatment plant that is being built in Sutton for $16 million. So that is not an insignificant amount of money. One-third of that is federal money. However, it's the working on improving the actual water quality itself and doing other research that is problematic.

But thank you.

Right Hon. Herb Gray: The only other thing I can say is that some of the institutions of the area may want to take aboard some of these issues as research projects--the research labs at Burlington, for example, or at some of the universities, assuming they have the funds.

The Chair: Thank you, Madame Kraft Sloan.

Mr. Thomas, did you have a comment?

Prof. Vernon Thomas: No, not on that particular question, but I would like to add perhaps a slight addendum to the answer I gave Mr. Tonks to his earlier question about what the committee could do with respect to advancing this issue of alien invasive species at the level of government. May I?

The Chair: Please.

Prof. Vernon Thomas: Thank you.

Perhaps an appropriate question to the Minister of the Environment would be, since we have ratified the biodiversity convention, and I presume it falls largely in his domain, how do we intend to discharge our obligation under article 8(h) on invasive species, bearing in mind that it does cut across government departments, but also bearing in mind that a significant number of the species that are listed in Canada as being at risk under the COSEWIC definition of species at risk are at risk because of the presence of exotic invasive species of both an aquatic and a terrestrial nature?

I think that could be a very germane question to pose to the minister.

The Chair: Mr. Thomas, we have not yet ratified the biodiversity convention. It is the intention to ratify it by 2004, but Canada has not yet ratified it.

Right Hon. Herb Gray: I thought of another success story: keeping the Asian carp out of the Great Lakes so far through the electronic barriers on the Illinois River and the new experimental bubble technology. It sounds like something out of Lawrence Welk, but apparently it works. So let's hope that that success continues.

The Chair: Sorry, Dr. Thomas, it is the Biosafety Protocol that I was referring to. My mistake.

Mr. Gray, would you like to comment briefly on one paragraph in your presentation today, namely, that on waste water infrastructure investments on Canada's part so far? I believe you have a figure in your report of $300 million. Do you feel this is adequate?

Right Hon. Herb Gray: I'm going to ask Dr. Krantzberg and Dr. Clamen to assist.

There is still more to be done. If I look in my own Windsor area, there are projects that the City of Windsor wants to carry out to eliminate the risk, when there is heavy runoff from storms, of sewage getting into the water, and that costs money. So they have improved their set-up in Windsor, but there is this remaining balloon, so to speak, to be done, and that applies in a number of centres.

So, yes, all the money has been spent to good effect. The waters are cleaner, if you look at the measures of drinkability, swimability--and speaking of indicators, there are beaches that have to be closed--and fishability. So there's more to be done.

The Chair: Has the Canadian section of the IJC quantified the needed amount of infrastructure investment in relation to waste water, and so on?

Right Hon. Herb Gray: Dr. Krantzberg, could you make a comment, please?

Dr. Gail Krantzberg: Yes. To the best of our ability--and we have done it in consultation with the Canadian government departments--our estimate is that for the Great Lakes areas of concern specifically, about $1.8 billion more needs to be invested for sewage treatment plants, storm sewer overflows, combined sewers, and waste water plant upgrades.

The Chair: On the Canadian side?

· (1320)

Dr. Gail Krantzberg: Yes, on the Canadian side.

The Chair: And on the U.S. side?

Dr. Gail Krantzberg: On the U.S. side, the figure is entirely unknown. There is very little information on what has been spent and what more needs to be spent. The only figures we have are for two large urban centres, at least $3 billion. But that's just for two large urban centres, and there are 26 other areas of concern where there is no information.

The Chair: Could that be obtained?

Dr. Gail Krantzberg: We continue to seek that information from the federal government on the American side, and we expect to have more information within a year's time.

The Chair: Will you communicate it to the committee?

Dr. Gail Krantzberg: Certainly.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Comartin, a final question.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I just have a statement on that last point, Mr. Chair. The figures that have just been noted don't take into account that it's primary and secondary treatment. It does not take into account at all toxins, which would be the tertiary treatment. Nobody in the country is doing that at this point that I'm aware of.

Regarding Windsor's sewage treatment plant, in spite of how happy you are about the Ottawa one, Windsor claims to be the cleanest one, because in fact with the ozone treatment that they're using there, they may be getting at some of the toxins, although we're not sure.

But none of those figures take into account active chemicals that are getting through the system because primary and secondary treatment doesn't deal with them at all.

The Chair: Mr. Lunn's substitute.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Thank you. It's good to see Mr. Gray again at a committee table and see him back on the Hill here.

I just wonder if you had any additional comment about the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Certainly the Americans have been protesting for a long time the lack of sewage treatment from the city of Victoria, and I just wonder if you can give us any comment about where we're at on that situation. Are we going to advance that file somehow?

Right Hon. Herb Gray: The International Joint Commission deals only with fresh water, the water that forms or crosses the boundary. A limited exception is the estuaries of boundary waters, like the estuary of the St. Lawrence, or the estuary of the St. Croix. So we don't play a role with respect to Victoria and Juan de Fuca Strait because they're salt water. If the two countries would like to broaden the treaty and ask us to do more, I'm sure we'd do it.

I'm personally aware of the situation. Your colleague pointed out that it troubles the State of Washington greatly, as well as the people in the Victoria area. But under the treaty, we don't have a role.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Comartin, a final, final question.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I think this is probably a consensus of the committee--and I'll make the notice of motion for the next agenda--that we have on the agenda a motion to adopt the recommendation that we support that the reference that the IJC take on this work with regard to invasive species. So if you could simply show that I've now made that notice of motion, we can deal with it at the next meeting.

The Chair: Duly noted. Thank you.

Then we will conclude this meeting. It was a good, comprehensive two hours. We learned a tremendous amount of policy potential.

There is evidently a desire on the part of the members of the committee to act upon a number of suggestions. We will keep you informed, of course, and we thank you for appearing before the committee.

We hope to see you again soon. Thank you very much.

Prof. Vernon Thomas: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.