FOPO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 11, 2003

¿

0910

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

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

The Chair

The Rt Hon. Herb Gray (Chairman, Canadian Section, International Joint Commission)

¿

0915

The Chair

The Rt Hon. Herb Gray

Mr. Herb Gray

Mr. Robert Gourd (Commissioner, Canadian Section, International Joint Commission)

¿

0920

The Rt Hon. Herb Gray

Mr. Dennis Schornack (Chairman, United States Section, International Joint Commission)

¿

0925

¿

0930

¿

0935

The Chair

Mr. Herb Gray

Ms. Johanne Gélinas (Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

¿

0940

¿

0945

¿

0950

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

The Rt Hon. Herb Gray

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Dennis Schornack

Mr. John Cummins

Mr. Dennis Schornack

¿

0955

Mr. John Cummins

The Rt Hon. Herb Gray

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

À

1000

Mr. John Cummins

The Rt Hon. Herb Gray

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Andrew Ferguson (Director, Professional Practices and Review, Office of the Auditor General of Canada)

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

À

1005

Mr. Herb Gray

Mr. Robert Gourd

À

1010

The Chair

Mr. Jean-Yves Roy

Mr. Herb Gray

Mr. Robert Gourd

Mr. Dennis Schornack

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

À

1015

The Chair

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

Mr. Dennis Schornack

À

1020

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

Mr. Dennis Schornack

The Chair

Mr. Carmen Provenzano

The Chair

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.)

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

À

1025

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Schornack

The Chair

Mr. John Cummins

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Andrew Ferguson

À

1030

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Schornack

Mr. John Cummins

The Rt Hon. Herb Gray

The Chair

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

À

1035

Mr. Dennis Schornack

The Rt Hon. Herb Gray

Mr. Joe Comartin

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Andrew Ferguson

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Dennis Schornack

À

1040

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Dennis Schornack

The Chair

The Rt Hon. Herb Gray

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.)

À

1045

The Rt Hon. Herb Gray

Mr. Dennis Schornack

The Rt Hon. Herb Gray

Mr. Dennis Schornack

The Rt Hon. Herb Gray

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

À

1050

The Chair

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

Mr. Andrew Ferguson

Mr. Loyola Hearn

À

1055

Mr. Andrew Ferguson

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Mr. Andrew Ferguson

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

Mr. Andrew Ferguson

Mr. Loyola Hearn

The Chair

Á

1100

Mr. Dennis Schornack

The Chair

The Rt Hon. Herb Gray

The Chair

Ms. Johanne Gélinas

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

---

NUMBER 014

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 11, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0910)  

[Translation]

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

    Yes, Mr. Roy.

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): We have not yet received the agenda nor the documents.

[English]

    The Chair: Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing a study on invasive species.

    Good morning to everyone. I want to welcome our assembled guests this morning, in particular the joint chairmen of the International Joint Commission, the Right Honourable Herb Gray and Mr. Dennis Schornack. We also have the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development in the Office of the Auditor General, Joanne Gélinas, and a variety of officials who I'm sure the joint chairs and the commissioner will introduce in due course.

    I can't help but notice that we're talking about invasive species, and it appears as if our space as MPs is being invaded already. But we do have some room down here if we have any others who are ready to go.

    I understand that Mr. Gray is going to begin with an opening statement, and then I think the presenters have it agreed amongst themselves how they're going to go. Therefore, I would be pleased to call on the Right Honourable Herb Gray to begin.

    The Rt Hon. Herb Gray (Chairman, Canadian Section, International Joint Commission): Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I'm pleased to appear today to discuss our findings with respect to alien invasive species arising from our recent “11th Biennial Reporton Great Lakes Water Quality”. We are pleased to note that for the first time this committee is holding hearings that specifically focus on this serious issue. I know of the testimony your committee received in a meeting last week with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, and Professor Ricciardi of McGill University. It would appear that we are all making presentations along similar lines.

    Now, with me this morning are the chair of the U.S. Section of the International Joint Commission, Dennis Schornack; Madam Johanne Gélinas, commissioner for the environment and sustainable development; and Canadian IJC Commissioner Robert Gourd, who has had a great interest in this issue for many years.

    We will be speaking, but with us we have the remaining commissioners, Governor Olson, now of Minnesota but formerly of North Dakota; Dr. Jack Blaney, commissioner of the International Joint Commission, Canadian Section, from British Columbia; and Commissioner Irene Brooks, originally from Pennsylvania but who, I think, has just moved to the west coast. Now, they will be joining us and giving us a good swift kick or passing us notes if they don't like what we're saying.

    We have agreed that our presentations will be made first by me, and I'm sharing my time with Commissioner Gourd, and then Commissioner Schornack will speak. After that we'll turn the floor over to Madam Gélinas, and then we'll be available for your questions, en français et en anglais.

    My opening statement is based, as I've said, on the commission's recently published “11th Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality”. Under the binational Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the commission has the mandate to report on the Canadian and American governments' progress in fulfilling their obligations to restore the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the Great Lakes.

    Since the 1980s, the International Joint Commission has issued alerts about the threat of alien aquatic species to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin and its economy. Yet despite more than a decade of international attention and, yes, some degree of action, this biological pollution continues at both great ecological and great economic cost.

    Alien invasive species, also often referred to as exotic species, I remind you, are organisms that are not native to a particular region or ecosystem. For example, the zebra mussel is an exotic species, an alien species in North America, but in the Caspian Sea it's a native species. While the term “exotic species” includes terrestrial and aquatic organisms, our presentations today focus on the latter.

    Researchers widely believe and in fact agree that the costs of biological pollution from alien invasive species is both massive and rising, the cost to native ecosystems, natural resources, fisheries, and agriculture being to the tune of $137 billion per year in the United States alone, including but not restricted to what we're talking about today, aquatic species. We have not yet developed similar figures in Canada, but I am certain the costs are similarly high for Canadians as well.

    In the Great Lakes, cost for treatment and control of zebra mussels and the sea lamprey over the past decade have exceeded $100 million, and the sea lamprey, because of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission control program, has been greatly reduced in numbers. However, experts say it can never be totally eliminated.

¿  (0915)  

    The damage from alien species is at least as much environmental as economic. Since biological pollution's effects are often irreversible, any additional future introductions of alien invasive species could permanently harm the biological and ecological diversity of the Great Lakes, which are, as you know, the world's largest surface freshwater system.

[Translation]

    As I said earlier, despite more than a decade of national attention and some degree of action, the introduction and spread of aquatic alien invasive species continue to affect the biological integrity of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin ecosystem.

[English]

    So we believe immediate Canadian government action is required to make compulsory by regulation improved ship ballast water management procedures. However, this will reduce but not eliminate the biological and economic threat to the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River basin ecosystem from the further introduction and spread of alien invasive species. The Great Lakes region's sense of the biological and economic urgency of the problem drives the call for more federal leadership and immediate steps to prevent further introduction and spread of alien invasive species.

    Members of the committee, I say to you the time to act is now. The specific steps the IJC recommends and calls for will be outlined by Chairman Schornack in his presentation.

    Before calling on Commissioner Gourd and Chair Schornack to provide more specifics of our concerns, we would like with your permission to show a short video produced by the very capable Office of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development about this matter.

    Thank you for your attention.

[Translation]

    Thank you.

    We will now watch the video.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gray.

    The Rt Hon. Herb Gray: Does someone want to explain this as we go along?

    I guess that's the green crab that is a problem for the coast. Before that, I think we saw the round goby. This is the green crab again, I believe. I hope you don't mind my giving you a bit of colour commentary. We also have some non-aquatic species in the video.

    [Video Presentation]

[Translation]

    Mr. Herb Gray: I will now give the floor to my distinguished colleague, Mr. Robert Gourd.

    Mr. Robert Gourd (Commissioner, Canadian Section, International Joint Commission): Thank you. I would also like to thank the Committee for having us today.

    The Commission has long recognized the threat of alien invasive species to the Great Lakes St. Lawrence ecosystem.

    As far back as September 1990, the Commission, in collaboration with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, issued a special report recommending that all ocean-going ships at the very least be required to change their ballast in mid-ocean before entering the Great Lakes.

    We also recommended that the United States and Canada, through the Coast Guard and other responsible agencies, coordinate their ballast water exchange and treatment programs as fully as possible for the purpose of standardization, monitoring, and enforcement. Simply said this has yet to happen.

    Current U.S. regulations, Canadian guidelines, and industry practices in place are not sufficient to prevent further alien invasive species introduction and spread. The pace of progress is much too slow while the risks to the lakes remain high. Specifically, current U.S. regulations exempting ships declaring no ballast on board do nothing to minimize the threat. These ships represent 70 to 75 p. 100 of all ship traffic entering the Great Lakes.

    Ongoing U.S. studies have found in the range of 6,000 to 600,000 invertebrate eggs per metric tonne in the residual sediment of ships with no ballast on board. Further to this, these researchers have been successful in maturing eggs that were found in a resting stage in the ballast water tanks in ships .

    Transport Canada must in a timely manner make their ballast water management guidelines into effective regulations to cover all ships, including those that have discharged their ballast waters, to address these and other potential threats of aquatic invasive species.

    Lack of adequate funding for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which is responsible for the research necessary to develop biological standards necessary to drive technology, product development and ship design, is a major obstacle to making progress in a timely manner.

    Also, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans must accept those responsibilities in both freshwater and salt water activities. We encourage Fisheries and Oceans to take a more balanced approach to their mandate by making more resources available, or seeking more resources to address their responsibilities for inland waters and in particular the Great Lakes St. Lawrence basin.

    Finally, allow me to use the example of lamprey. We can now control it, but that it is absolutely useless; nobody wants to eat it and we have to put up with it.

    Thank you, gentlemen.

¿  (0920)  

[English]

    The Rt Hon. Herb Gray: Now I would like to turn the floor over to the chair of the American section of the commission, Dennis Schornack, who will conclude our presentation by bringing forward the specific recommendations for action that we are recommending to the committee.

    Mr. Dennis Schornack (Chairman, United States Section, International Joint Commission): Thank you, Commissioner Gray.

    Good morning, Chairman Wappel and members of the committee. I'm honoured to join my IJC colleagues and Commissioner Gélinas as you study how to tackle the number one issue facing the Great Lakes today, alien invasive species.

    But first I want to note my good fortune to enjoy a privilege so many of you have enjoyed for so long, and that is serving shoulder to shoulder with the Right Honourable Herb Gray. Canada is truly blessed by his leadership.

    For more than 20 years I have worked on policies to protect the Great Lakes. I know that when our two nations work together, our strength and determination can meet any challenge to the lakes. As partners, we have the ability and the means to prevent the invasion of alien species. What we need is the political will and the leadership that begin with the men and women in this room today.

    My briefing draws from a recent report published by the International Association for Great Lakes Research. Copies of this report have been translated and made available to the committee, and I strongly, strongly urge you to read it.

    As noted by Chair Gray, the involvement of the IJC stems from the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. That agreement committed the governments of the United States and Canada to a great purpose, to restore and maintain the chemical, the physical, and the biological integrity of the Great Lakes basin ecosystem.

    Mr. Chairman, there is a serious and urgent threat to our lakes, and our nations must respond to that threat and respond now. Invasive species are the number one threat to the biological integrity of the Great Lakes. They are the number one threat to biodiversity, pushing native species to the brink of extinction. They are the number one threat to our biosecurity, putting cultures, lifestyles, and jobs at risk. In short, invasive species are the number one threat to the ecology and the economy of the Great Lakes.

    Let me share one stark example. The near death of Lake Erie more than thirty years ago was the crisis that triggered a ban on phosphate detergents. Later, bans on certain toxic chemical discharges were also adopted. As a result, Lake Erie came back, but now many scientists believe that Lake Erie is at risk again, under attack by alien invaders that are wreaking havoc on the lake ecosystem, threatening native species, disrupting the food web, and changing the critical processes that maintain a stable and healthy lake.

    That's why this is the most pressing problem facing our lakes. I'm talking about costs in the billions of dollars to governments at all levels and to industry, especially power providers. There has been $10 billion in economic costs for the zebra mussel alone and untold ecological damage since 1988. That means higher water costs and higher electricity bills for your constituents, potential devastation of a $4.5 billion annual fishery, and serious threats to our way of life and to the lifestyles of the diverse cultures that call the Great Lakes home.

    I'd like to offer a simple model to picture the many ways these alien invaders enter our lakes. Think of three doorways to invasion. First, there's the front door. The primary pathway for invasion is the discharge of untreated ballast water brought in by foreign vessels and spread by interlake traffic.

¿  (0925)  

    I want to commend the Shipping Federation of Canada for being, in 1989, the very first to adapt voluntary ballast exchange guidelines. In 1993 the United States enacted mandatory regulations, enforced by the coast guard, requiring ballast water exchange outside the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. New, more comprehensive regulations are under development and will be in place by next year. However, as noted by Commissioner Gourd, these rules are not very effective. Since these regulations were enacted, scientists have identified at least five new invaders.

    Now, let me be blunt. As two nations dedicated to maritime free trade, we've always laid a welcome mat at the doorway to our lakes. But as nations also dedicated to conserving a world-class freshwater resource, we must take strong measures to close our lakes to unwanted invaders and to keep them open to commerce.

    We have given the committee a matrix dealing with the many technologies that might be used. One technology, stripping the oxygen out of ballast water, appears promising because it kills most invaders and also reduces corrosion, thereby lengthening the useful life of ships.

    The second way invaders get in is through the side door to our shared waters, the Chicago canal, a man-made connection between the two largest basins in North America, the Mississippi and the Great Lakes. Looming in this doorway are Asian carp, large aquatic vacuum cleaners that are moving up the Mississippi toward the Great Lakes and that are now less than fifty miles from Lake Michigan. They suck up plankton and disrupt the food chain upon which all other fish life depends. Reaching up to one hundred pounds, this piscatorial poster child for invasive species simply has no predators. We cannot let them decimate fishing in the Great Lakes and we cannot let them turn the Great Lakes into a carp pond.

    Last July the IJC alerted the governments to the seriousness of the threat and called for immediate action to prevent the invasion. I am pleased to report to you that a coalition of government agencies, researchers, and non-profit organizations responded quickly to our call, and they're getting results.

    However, our best efforts to prevent the passage of this fish into the Great Lakes are being thwarted by a third doorway, the back door to the Great Lakes. By this I mean the sale of bait and aquarium fish and especially by live sales in fish markets in cities such as Chicago, Toronto, and yes, even Ottawa.

    Mr. Chair, if you will, I just wanted to bring out and show you an example of this big-headed carp. Fortunately, it's not alive anymore. This was bought live just yesterday in a market here in Ottawa, and I want to tell you, there was nothing but my good conscience that kept me from releasing it into the Ottawa River and ultimately into the Great Lakes ecosystem. This is a small one; this is only, I think, 13 pounds, and they get up to over a hundred pounds.

    In the U.S. action is being taken at the federal, state, and even local level to prohibit the sale, transport, and possession of Asian carp and other exotic species. In Canada voluntary organizations such as the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters are educating their members about the threat, and I believe that such broad societal partnerships are key to changing behaviour and solving the problem.

    Mr. Chairman and members, what can you do to stop these threats? First and foremost, Canada and the United States must work together to harmonize and strengthen the rules of maritime commerce.

    Second, science must drive decision-making so we avoid the risk of using blunt instruments as advocated by those who say we must simply ban ballast water dumping.

    Third, our nations must support additional research into ship design, risk assessment, rapid response, and ballast water treatment technologies.

    Fourth, we must provide for the testing of bench-scale technologies on full-scale boats.

    Fifth, we must develop a decision support system to track ships in transit and evaluate the risk of their spreading invasive species.

¿  (0930)  

    Finally, we need a workable balanced water treatment standard and the means to enforce it.

    In our “11th Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality”, the IJC called for a reference to address each of these recommendations and “to coordinate and harmonize binational efforts for action to stop this ongoing threat to the economy and the biological integrity of the Great Lakes.” I repeat that call today and note that support for this reference is growing.

    In conclusion, let me remind the committee that in 1978 Canada and the United States agreed to a standard calling for the zero discharge and virtual elimination of persistent toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes. Now, 25 years later, we must be guided by that same vision as we act to stop biological pollution that is just as persistent and dangerous as chemical contamination.

    The research report we've provided to the committee suggests a 10-year goal to eliminate invasions, but I believe that 10 years is just too long. We can do better, we must do better, and we must do it soon.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your patience.

¿  (0935)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Schornack.

[Translation]

    Mr. Herb Gray: Mr. Chairman, I would now give the floor to Ms. Gélinas.

[English]

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas (Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Thank you, Mr. Gray.

    Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of Parliament, distinguished guests. I will make a brief statement and then I will be happy to answer any of your questions.

    I'm joined at the table today by Andrew Ferguson, the director responsible for the invasive species audit; Neil Maxwell, who was the principal responsible for this chapter and for the petition process--and I will talk about that later--and John Reed, also a principal in my office. He was responsible for the Great Lakes report in 2001, and he's responsible in my group for the sustainable development strategies that I will talk more about later.

    I want to speak to you today about invasive species, but Mr. Chairman, let me first introduce myself and my responsibility, considering it's the first time I appear in front of this committee.

    My position was created in 1995. I'm part of the Auditor General's office and I follow the same methodology. Like the report of the Auditor General, my report provides members of Parliament with independent, objective analyses and recommendations that they can use to assess the federal government's performance. I have my own report, which is tabled to Parliament in the fall of each year.

    As commissioner, I have three main responsibilities. First, I am required to monitor and report to Parliament on how well departments have implemented their sustainable development strategies and achieved the objectives set out in those strategies.

    The strategies are basically action plans by departments to move Canada toward sustainable development. You have an example of what a strategy looks like. All departments have one. They are valuable tools for parliamentarians, so you may be interested in having a look at the one produced by Fisheries and Oceans to see the commitments they have made.

    Second, I have broad authority to examine and report on environmental and sustainable development issues that I believe should be brought to Parliament's attention. So far my office has examined and reported on such concerns as climate change, toxic substances, and federal contaminated sites.

    In 2001, I reported on the state of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River basin. My staff examined a broad range of environmental concerns in that region, including species at risk; wetland conservation; water management; and fisheries issues such as protecting fish habitat, providing scientific support to Fisheries decisions, and addressing aquatic invasive species.

    The third aspect of my mandate relates to the petitions process. The petitions process was put in place to help citizens get straight answers from federal ministers on important environmental issues. I encourage Canadians to use it. I also invite members of Parliament to use it. You should also encourage your constituents to use it.

    In my annual report to Parliament, I describe issues raised in the environmental petitions I have received during the year and highlight how federal ministries have responded. To date, I have received more than 60 petitions from concerned citizens. Members may be interested to know that fisheries issues are the predominant concern raised in the petitions and that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is the most petitioned.

    You have received a list of recent petitions. For your information, there's something related to the sea lice problem in the west, also the marine dump site on the east coast.

    Let me now turn to invasive species.

¿  (0940)  

[Translation]

    Chapter 4 of my 2002 report builds on the invasive species component of our 2001 report on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin. The chapter focuses on the government's management of alien invasive species that effect Canada's ecosystems—both on land and in the water. Let me tell you what we found.

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

    In signing the convention, the Canadian government formally pledged to prevent the introduction of alien species that threaten Canada's ecosystems, habitats, and other species or to control or eradicate them. Three years later, in 1995, the federal government published its strategy for honouring its pledge. It decided that control or elimination of harmful alien organisms is necessary to conserve biodiversity and prevent the further destruction of ecosystems. The government's 1995 strategy set out a number of actions it considered essential to the task.

    As I reported in September 2002, we found that neither the 10-year-old United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity nor the government's own biodiversity strategy—which is now eight years old—had triggered any identifiable change in the government's approach to the problem. The federal government has still not identified the invasive species that threaten Canada's ecosystems or the pathways by which they arrive. Human and financial resources have not been coordinated. There is no consensus on priorities, no clear understanding of who will do what to respond, and no capability to gage progress on the government's commitments.

    We found that despite long-standing commitments, agreements, and accords, there has been a lack of practical action by the federal government to prevent alien invaders from harming Canada's ecosystem. As a result, their numbers in Canada have grown steadily. In short, this what I have called leaving the door open to invasive species that threaten our ecosystems.

    As you can see, we are not alone in our concern. Recent reports by our colleagues at the United States General Accounting Office and the International Joint Commission also tell us that the threats posed by alien invasive species persist, unabated by decades of government policies and plans.

    All Canadians should be concerned. Experts long ago concluded that invasive species are second only to habitat destruction as a cause of biodiversity loss, including local extinctions. More recent studies indicate that invaders now threaten ecosystems right across Canada and cause billions of dollars of damage to our economy every year. If trends continue, costs will mount. And, with the loss of biodiversity, our storehouse of biological resources will continue to be depleted.

[English]

    Thus, our findings, and those of other respected institutions, have disturbing implications for our ecosystems and our pocketbooks. But local communities, whose economies depend on healthy stocks of native species, may feel the consequences of inaction most directly and severely.

    Our colleagues from the International Joint Commission have been most eloquent in their description of the threat posed to the Great Lakes from alien aquatic invaders and from shipping ballast in particular. As I pointed out in my report, this is a national problem that affects communities from coast to coast. Aquatic invaders not only threaten the Great Lakes but are a clear and present threat to many of our inland lakes and rivers and to the ecology and economies along Canada's coasts.

¿  (0945)  

    One of the invaders profiled in my report, which you saw on the video, is the green crab. It is aggressively colonizing along our Atlantic coast, putting the clam, mussel, and oyster industry there at risk.

    To show the magnitude of what is at risk, the landed value of Atlantic clams, mussels, and oysters was about $57 million in 2000. Catches of Atlantic lobster, which scientists believe may also be threatened, were worth over $500 million in 2000. On the west coast, where the green crab has also been discovered, the value of native clams and crab catches in 2000 was about $25 million. More than 200 fishing vessels and crew and thousands of crab fishermen from 33 coastal first nations communities depend on healthy native stocks for their livelihoods. The number of recreational crabbers in British Columbia is estimated at between 10,000 and 20,000.

[Translation]

    As part of its eight-year-old strategy to deal with alien invasive species, the government committed to developing data bases to help identify and anticipate harmful alien organisms so preventive measures can be taken. Since it has created no such data base, the government has no way of knowing how many such species are out there. However, as our colleagues have pointed out, there is ample evidence that ship ballast remains a major entryway for aquatic invaders.

    Once again, the government has a long-standing commitment in its biodiversity strategy to eliminate common sources of unintentional introductions. Aside from ongoing discussions, however, it has taken no concrete steps in Canada to deal with what many experts believe is the predominant source of aquatic invaders.

    Mr. Chairman, my objective today is to focus your attention on the future, not the past, on practical considerations such as the need to identify the invasive species that pose the greatest risk to Canada's ecosystems and economy and how they arrive; the need to establish a concrete plan in the operational capacity to prevent their introduction; the specific need to determine science-based criteria for the safe release of ballast water into Canadian waters; and the need to gage the government's progress on its invasive species commitment.

    Given the threat they pose to biodiversity and the clear potential for their further introduction, alien invasive species must be targeted immediately with preventive action, and I am not the only one saying this.

[English]

    As a starting point, three things are needed for success, in my view.

    First, the federal government needs a concrete, adequately resourced action plan for invasive species. Coordinating such a plan is the responsibility of Environment Canada, but setting clear results-based goals, allocating the necessary resources, implementing the plan, and applying existing policies and legislation are the responsibility of various departments, including Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Transport Canada.

    Second, progress towards expected results must be tracked.

    And third, ministers and departments must be held accountable for their performance.

    I believe concerted action by the government is needed and I think this committee could help drive such action.

    Mr. Chairman, we need straight answers. Who has responsibility for key issues in this country? What action has been taken and what results have been achieved? How will Parliament and Canadians be kept informed? The departmental responses to my recommendations did not answer those questions. Most of what they pledged to do is nothing more than a restatement of the status quo.

    I hope you can get answers to these questions. I'd be happy to share my thoughts on how this can be done, if you wish, and of course I will be happy to answer any of your questions.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

¿  (0950)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Madame Gélinas, and the co-chairs of the International Joint Commission, and all of the other people at the table. Welcome, commissioners.

    Our usual course is to begin our questioning with the official opposition critic for Fisheries and Oceans. I presume you're ready to go, Mr. Cummins?

    Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Yes, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Just before you do start, I hope somebody does ask Madame Gélinas about how she proposes to get things done.

    Mr. Cummins.

    Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Welcome to our witnesses today, and a special welcome of course to Mr. Gray. I am certain that Mr. Gray will not start his responses this morning with the suggestion that the premise of the member's question is false.

    The Chair: We'll see about that.

    Mr. John Cummins: Anyway, Mr. Gray, the commission's report this year observed that the federal government hasn't responded effectively to invasive species that threaten Canada's ecosystem, and you suggested you have not identified the invasive species that threaten Canada's ecosystems or the pathways that they arrive by.

    Generally speaking, which of Canada's ecosystems do you think are potentially the most vulnerable to invasive species and what kinds of organisms constitute the greatest threat?

    The Rt Hon. Herb Gray: I think the most vulnerable would be the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes, by the way, should be looked upon by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans as Canada's fourth coast and as Canada's fourth ocean.

    As for the species that are the greatest problem, I think right now we have to point to the zebra mussel and the round goby. And the sea lamprey, as I said, is still with us, so if the fisheries commission is not active and vigilant, it can come back and wreak havoc on our sports and commercial species in the Great Lakes.

    But I think it's clear to say that all our lakes along the continent are potentially vulnerable, and while the commission operates only with respect to the boundary waters that form or cross the international boundary, the fresh waters, I think Madame Gélinas has made a very compelling case for this committee to be concerned about what is happening on our saltwater coast as well as the freshwater coast of the Great Lakes.

    Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Gray.

    Mr. Schornack, do you consider the Pacific salmon, which were introduced into the Great Lakes, an invasive species?

    Mr. Dennis Schornack: They're certainly not a native species. They were introduced, as you know, to take care of the alewives, and they now are at the top of the food chain.

    Mr. John Cummins: Is there a threat of their expanding beyond the Great Lakes?

    Mr. Dennis Schornack: That's a good question. I don't believe there's much of a threat of their expanding beyond the Great Lakes unless people wish to transport them to other areas and to introduce them in areas where they're not native. They're pretty well contained in the Great Lakes. It's basically a put-and-take fishery. There's not natural reproduction of the salmonids in the Great Lakes, and I don't believe they pose much of a threat.

¿  (0955)  

    Mr. John Cummins: We've mentioned the west coast. According to the Government of Alaska, farmed Atlantic salmon are potentially a serious invasive species threat to Alaska. In fact, in testimony to the Leggatt inquiry and to the standing committee in Vancouver last year, the representative from the Alaskan government said that:

Our foremost concern is the one of escapes of Atlantic salmon from the net pens. We are capturing them in our marine and freshwaters, and now we know that they are capable of reproducing. We are very concerned about the potential to negatively impact Alaska's healthy fishing economy and culture...

    Is the International Joint Commission or the environment commissioner aware of Alaska's concerns, and do they share them?

    The Rt Hon. Herb Gray: We're certainly aware of Alaska's concerns, but as I pointed out, the mandate of the commission, arising out of the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, is to deal with matters concerning the boundary waters, those waters that form or cross the boundary, which gives us an area of jurisdiction and oversight from one coast to the other of some 5,000 miles, as well as the waters that form or cross the boundary between our two countries in the area of Alaska, British Columbia, and Yukon.

    But with respect to exercising oversight with regard to the very serious matter you mentioned, we're aware of that. But we would have to leave more detailed comment perhaps to Madame Gélinas.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I can't speak specifically to that point, but if I can, I'll add something on Mr. Cummins' question.

    Probably one of the most disturbing things related to our audit is that nobody can answer your question. We don't know how many invasive species are in this country, where they get in, which ones are the priority, or which ones we should focus on because of the potential damage. The answers to all these questions, all that information we are looking for, are not available as we speak.

    The Chair: In the meantime, Mr. Cummins also wanted to know if you were aware of Alaska's concerns with respect to fish farming.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: No. What I can add, though, is that our colleagues in the office who are responsible for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are doing a lot of work, as you probably know, on aquaculture on the west coast. Maybe some aspects of your question have been looked at. I cannot answer that, but I can find out if that was considered and get back to you.

    Mr. John Cummins: On that line, Madame Gélinas, you are concerned, then, that Atlantic salmon may be establishing themselves in B.C.'s coastal waters, are you? Similarly, are you concerned that farm fish may be replacing native species in the waters of New Brunswick, not to mention Maine?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: In fact, it's more citizens from the west coast who are really concerned about those two issues and who have used the petition process to bring to our attention what is going on. They have also asked departments and ministers to answer specific questions on what the government intends to do with respect to aquaculture on the west coast and also to the sea lice problem. You may be interested in looking at the answer that was given to the petitioner from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

    Mr. John Cummins: Madame Gélinas, it wasn't in your written remarks, but twice you mentioned sea lice, and you mentioned that with regard to both coasts in Canada. I hadn't considered them an invasive species. Could you elaborate on why you mentioned them?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Essentially, I mentioned the sea lice with respect to what was going on out on the west coast, not on the east coast. What I was referring to was the petition we got on the specific issue.

    We looked at it, and in the handout we gave you earlier, you will have the specific question the petitioner asked in order to get answers from the departments. You don't have the answers there, but I will be pleased to forward them to you, and the information is accessible to all Canadians on our website.

    At some point I may decide to do further investigation in this area, but so far we have stopped our work in publishing, if you will, the answers we got from the department on this specific question. It's petition number 54, the first one on the list of recent petitions we gave you.

À  (1000)  

    Mr. John Cummins: Thank you.

    The 2002 commissioner's report states that “No federal department sees the big picture or has overarching authority to ensure that federal priorities are established and action is taken.” It's always been my understanding that the federal Minister of Fisheries had the constitutional obligation to protect wild fish and their habitat, so I'm curious about that statement. I wonder if someone, perhaps Mr. Gray, could respond to that and clarify that matter for us.

    The Rt Hon. Herb Gray: I would like to make a brief comment and then turn the floor over to Madame Gélinas, who exercises oversight with respect to the sustainable development policies of all the departments.

    I do want to say that the point you and Madame Gélinas have made is the reason the commission has proposed that the two governments give the commission a formal reference, that is to say a formal request, to exercise oversight and to facilitate coordination of all the disparate elements that have been put before you. We hope you'll support this idea. We have, for example, a permanent reference under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement giving us the obligation to facilitate the implementation of the agreement and to report as required on what is happening or not happening. We feel that if we had something similar from the two governments, we would be making a major contribution to dealing with the problem.

    But with respect to particular departments and who should do what, I would prefer to defer to Madame Gélinas.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Thank you.

    Mr. Chair, before I give the floor to my colleague, who can give you a bit more explanation on that, I'd like to point out that our audit makes clear that, first of all, Environment Canada is responsible for the overall coordination on invasive species. On the other hand, Transport Canada certainly has a clear mandate to regulate ballast water and prevent the introduction of invasive species from ships. Third, DFO has a clear responsibility, as you said, to protect fish and fish habitat.

    Now, in our report we haven't used the same expression, but let me use the analogy of a ping-pong game to describe the dialogue between DFO and Transport Canada. At the moment, even if it's clear on paper, when you look at the answers they've given us, even if DFO says that it will provide the scientific information to set up the standards on ballast water, when you ask the specific question of who will develop the standards, you can't get a straight answer. When I was looking for the committee's help to work on that, this was one of the aspects where it wasn't clear. They're words, and you can play with words, but “standards” was not used by DFO.

    So in my mind it's not clear, and when I talk about ping-pong, it's because Transport Canada says that it has to develop the regulations. For good regulations, you need good standards. There it relies on DFO for standards. DFO has said they'll give the scientific analysis, but nobody talks about standards.

    This is the situation as I understand it, and Andrew, maybe you would like to add to it a bit.

    Mr. Andrew Ferguson (Director, Professional Practices and Review, Office of the Auditor General of Canada): Yes, the minister is correct in assuming that various departments have legislative authority and responsibility for doing specific things. Our comments were made in the context of a national plan. There is no department that has overarching authority to compel other departments to do what they are empowered to do in their legislation. In other words, if Environment Canada is successful in coordinating a national plan on paper, it still has no authority to compel those departments to take part in the plan, to actually do what they say they will do.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Roy, you have five minutes.

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

    If I've understood you correctly, Ms. Gélinas, you're saying that everyone keeps throwing the ball into the other person's court and no one is taking responsibility.

    However, that is not my question. I would like to ask Mr. Gray or Mr. Gourd why they think the situation is urgent now. I don't remember which one of you said this, but you said that within 10 years, if we do not do something, the Great Lakes ecosystem will be completely changed, almost destroyed.

    And yet, the St. Lawrence Seaway was opened at the end of the 1950s; other invasive species must have arrived before those that you showed us on the map. Why are we only becoming aware of the problem today and why does it seem to be getting worse?

    The green crab was mentioned as being present on our coasts, particularly in the east and the west. Where does that species come from and why has it been able to establish itself on our coasts, when ships have been coming here for 300 or 400 years? That species could have established itself on our coasts much earlier on.

    As a lay person, I'm asking you why is the problem so serious today as compared to what it was during the 1960s?

À  (1005)  

    Mr. Herb Gray: My colleagues will answer that question.

    Mr. Robert Gourd: Thank you, Mr. Roy. I don't think this is something new. The problem has been around for a long time but there have been no specific standards. In theory, the Canadian Coast Guard is supposed to check that ballast water has been changed before the ships enter the gulf. We don't know if this happens, and the government has no way of monitoring the ships coming in. Several suggestions have been made, several projects have been put forward, but nothing definite has emerged. The danger in this is that ship owners may tell us that if we subject them to monitoring, they may stop unloading in the Port of Montreal and head to Boston or New York instead. If we put too much pressure on the shippers, jobs are going to be lost because the ships will stop coming. This is a very important issue.

    There is another reason why this matter becomes so important: the zebra mussels especially are everywhere now. They are in the Richelieu; they are in Champlain Lake; they are in the Rideau Canal. Zebra mussels are everywhere and the amount of money and effort now required by municipalities to clean them out has simply become astronomical. So someone is going to have to take the initiative. But as Ms. Gélinas pointed out, who is responsible? Transport Canada? Environment Canada? Fisheries and Oceans Canada? At the International Joint Commission, we have said that the beginning of a solution may lie in the government giving us the mandate to discuss what we can do with our American colleagues, especially in terms of territorial waters. For now, however, it is very difficult for me to answer.

    I'd like to answer another question that was put by your colleague earlier. Atlantic salmon is threatened by Pacific salmon, which was introduced in the Great Lakes, because it is moving up the St. Lawrence. Eventually, salmon rivers in Quebec will be threatened—I know this because I am an avid fisherman and fisherman are talking about this—just as Pacific salmon are threatened by Atlantic salmon farming on the Pacific Coast. This is a very serious problem.

À  (1010)  

    The Chair: Mr. Roy, last question.

    Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: You spoke about zebra mussels. You mentioned that they are everywhere and that it is costing municipalities and facilities owners billions of dollars. What you are saying, in fact, is that it is too late for the zebra mussel but we have to ensure that other species do not invade our waters. That is the message you are sending us. The second message, which is obvious, is that somebody has to be responsible, there has to be a centralized system of managing this appropriately. That is the message.

    Mr. Herb Gray: I'll ask my colleague to answer, but I hope that Mr. Schornack will have the opportunity of adding a few words.

    Mr. Robert Gourd: It is never too late. That is my answer.

[English]

    Mr. Dennis Schornack: Thank you. Your question is, why is it urgent now? And I would note that, yes, this is an old problem. The sea lamprey that we have an example of here came in in the 1820s, and it wasn't until the 1940s and 1950s that we discovered it wiped out the entire lake trout population in the Great Lakes. Only recently, after actions by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, has that particular fishery come back.

    We have over 162 known exotic species now in the Great Lakes. We are hitting the point where some scientists are using the term “invasion meltdown”-- in other words, such a catastrophic disruption of the Great Lakes ecosystem that nobody knows where it's going to head.

    So, yes, there's an urgency right now because we're starting to see the effects, ecosystem wide, of multiple inoculations from ballast water, from bait transfers, and from the threat posed by the Chicago canal. If this one species, the Asian carp--which we saw an example of here, thankfully dead--gets into the Great Lakes, commercial fishing, a $4 billion industry, could simply crash, because this fish takes out the entire bottom of the food chain upon which every other species of fish depends.

    Mr. Cummins is a commercial fisherman, and 75,000 people in this basin make their living from commercial fishing. That is a serious threat.

    Perhaps it's the increase of global trade, perhaps it's the increase of trade in particular with the Ponto-Caspian area where the zebra mussel, quagga mussel, and others have come from, but at least we are now beginning to recognize this threat and to do something about it.

    This isn't rocket science, this is a matter of two words: killing critters. It's killing critters in ballast tanks, and we can do that and we can do it soon.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Ms. Gélinas.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Mr. Chairman, in answer to Mr. Roy's question, I would like to say that we must keep in mind that two international conventions were signed: the convention on biodiversity and the convention on climate change.

    An endless series of debates had to take place before the climate change agreement was signed. The Convention on Biodiversity was signed in 1992. As you can well imagine, that convention was also preceded by much discussion. This is a problem that has been acknowledged world-wide and that has been recognized by the Canadian government for years. We ratified the convention in 1992, the government made commitments, but as I mentioned earlier, very little has been accomplished.

    Why is the problem more serious now than it was before? First, one must always keep in mind that this is biological pollution. My colleagues talked about zebra mussels. We provided an eloquent example of this in our report. Barely three years ago, there was one zebra mussel per square metre in the nearby Rideau Canal; a square metre is about the size of a table top. Today, there are 400,000 per square meter.

    It never ends. It is alive. It is biological, and by definition it reproduces. It's not like a contaminated site that you can leave that way until you decide to clean it up. This propagates and multiplies and so you must never stop.

    Our study also showed that there is no miracle solution. However, it has been clearly established that prevention is the most efficient way to intervene.

    In terms of costs, Ontario Power Generation, which has had major problems with zebra mussels in the Great Lakes, provided a few examples in its report. They have been spending millions of dollars every year simply to clean their facilities and to control the invasion.

    Why has this become so important today? In fact, it's no more important today than it was yesterday, but it is time to do something, especially now that we are in a position to determine the cost.

    We have been talking about aquatic species, but there are invasive species attacking Canadian forests and agriculture, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has put the cost to the Canadian economy at $7 billion per year. This is a more familiar sector, better defined and therefore better targeted, and furthermore, more data has been collected in this area. On the other hand, very little is known about aquatic species. We know that there are perhaps 160, but it is most likely that there are more and we are still not aware of all the damage they are causing.

    In terms of the green crab, it was seen and catalogued in New Brunswick in the 1950s. Today, because we can do research, we know more about its effect on fisheries, on fish and fish habitat on the east coast. It was already there in the 1950s and it took it 30 years to get to the west coast. I don't know how it got there, but its presence was noted in 1998.

    So you can see that we're talking about evolving, mobile phenomena. A problem that might have been local in 1950 has now become a national problem and therefore the costs are enormous.

À  (1015)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Madame Gélinas.

    We have 45 minutes left and we have at least six members who wish to ask questions, not counting myself. So I would greatly appreciate it if both the questions and the answers were more focused. That's not to say that the answers, or indeed the questions, aren't interesting.

    Mr. Provenzano, please, ten minutes.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): I'll get right to it.

    First of all, thank you, all witnesses, for your very interesting presentations. I'm going to pose a question to Mr. Schornack, although I would invite the response from any of the witnesses, and it relates to the seven recommendations that were made by Mr. Schornack with respect to cutting off the quarters of invasive species. You wouldn't argue with any of those recommendations.

    Particularly interesting is the statement, contained in a recommendation, that decision-making has to be driven by the best available science. And in terms of your first three recommendations that, first of all, Canada and U.S. cooperate with respect to making rules and regulations, and that any ecosystem decisions be based on a basin-wide approach, when you take that altogether, it raises a question of whether the commission is satisfied with respect to the level of science-sharing, first of all, between the two levels, the governments of Canada and the U.S.

    Secondly, if we're trying to take a basin-wide approach, do we have a basin-wide science-sharing program? Is that in effect? Is the science in that basin, and the science in the large areas of Canada and the United States that are affected, shared? Is the level of science-sharing satisfactory in that regard? What are your recommendations, if not as to how we might improve science-sharing? Does it all have to come from the government?

    There seems to be, from sitting where I sit, such a tremendous body of scientific knowledge out there. Are you satisfied that we're accessing it to the extent that we can?

    Mr. Dennis Schornack: Mr. Provenzano, the report we provided to this committee is provided by the International Association for Great Lakes Research, which is a binational organization. And that report, you will see, is a distillation of a great deal of research. There are three pages or so of references at the end of that document. There is a tremendous amount of scientific sharing between the two countries. Hugh McIsaac, from the University of Windsor, is perhaps the leading invasion biologist in North America. He shares his work a great deal with researchers in America.

    We share a lot of scientific research. What we don't share is some of the authority and cooperation it takes to stop the invasions. We're getting very close. We know there are a half dozen, a dozen, different technologies that could be used on ships to kill the critters in the ballast tanks before they get discharged. Unfortunately, we don't have good real-sized floating test platforms for the researchers to get out there on the ocean and on the lakes and see how their experiments work in real life. That is an absolute necessity that has to occur, and our two great nations can certainly put together the resources to get floating test platforms out there.

    So I feel very good about the sharing of the research. What I feel uncomfortable about is the sharing of the action.

À  (1020)  

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: Should we be working towards a central repository for that science so that it can be accessed more easily and more effectively?

    Mr. Dennis Schornack: I think that's an interesting idea. Certainly the International Association for Great Lakes Research that I talked about centrally maintains...and of course I don't know what the centralization is these days with the Internet and electronic exchanges. But certainly there are keepers of invasion biology research already in place in both our countries.

    The Chair: Mr. Provenzano.

    Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I understand we have time constraints.

    The Chair: We have more time on your side, so why don't we go to Mr. Farrah. By the way, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Farrah is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

[Translation]

    Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Right Honourable Mr. Gray, members of the commission, welcome. I have a question for Ms. Gélinas on government coordination in dealing with these issues.

    In your report, you mentioned that several departments are involved. As you pointed out, this is a difficult situation and it sometimes looks like a ping-pong game.

    What could you suggest to us? Which department should take leadership on an issue like this, given its importance? I would have thought the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should play a more important role, but given that there are various departments involved and given your experience with the government, which department do you think should take the lead?

    Perhaps for our information Mr. Schornack could tell us which American department has taken the lead on this. This might allow us to draw some comparisons on how this is dealt with in Canada and in the United States.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Thank you. It's not for me to tell you which department should lead. What I can tell you, based on our audit, is that the government clearly gave that leadership to the Department of the Environment. I am not challenging that decision, even though you may debate its appropriateness.

    You are absolutely right in saying that in the specific case of aquatic species, Fisheries and Oceans Canada should take that responsibility on behalf of the Department of the Environment. Anything regarding invasive aquatic species clearly falls under the specific responsibilities of Fisheries and Oceans, whose mandate is to protect habitat in fish.

    It's the coordination that is lacking. My colleague mentioned earlier that even if you're appointed coordinator, that does not give you the authority to force the other stakeholders to sit down at the table and discuss the issues, share responsibilities, share resources and move ahead. The problem is not so much who is the leader as how leaders will exercise their leadership, in other words who will take the necessary action to make progress.

    With your permission, I will now answer your colleague's question regarding the scientific aspect.

[English]

    If I may add to that, we said in the Great Lakes report--and that was one of our key messages--that the science was missing. It was weak, and even in the strategy on biodiversity it was made clear by the government that this was an area where all partners should work together. We have good examples in this country of partnerships, and this is probably an area where, given the little knowledge we have, everybody should work together.

À  (1025)  

    The Chair: Mr. Schornack, is this how it shakes down in the U.S.?

    Mr. Dennis Schornack: Let me organize my answer to that question along the lines of the three doorways we talked about.

    The first one has to do with ballast water transfers, and the U.S. currently has mandatory regulations. It's a matter of law that ships must exchange their ballast water out in the open ocean, outside the 200-mile exclusive economic zone. They test that exchange when the boats come in at Massena, New York. The coast guard boards each vessel, and they do a dip test in the ballast water tanks. They test the salinity of that water to see if it's at least 30 parts per 1,000, which is what open ocean water would be.

    However, as Commissioner Gourd pointed out, 75% of the ships coming into the Great Lakes come in under no-ballast-on-board conditions and are therefore not subject to these tests. The regulation is somewhat effective in that it has perhaps helped to deter more inoculations than we might otherwise have had, but it nevertheless exempts a huge class of ships that we know are responsible for depositing many species into the lakes.

    The General Accounting Office, which is the U.S. counterpart of Madame Gélinas' shop, did a parallel analysis of leadership within the U.S. system and came up with essentially the same conclusion. Even though we have the coast guard in charge of the gate at Massena, we still have many responsibilities scattered amongst many departments. We have a lot of Indians and, quite frankly, no chief. It's one of the reasons the IJC would like to get into the game, to determine and make recommendations on who that lead should be.

    For example, in Chicago, where we have the canal, we have the Army Corps of Engineers operating an experimental electrical barrier that's supposed to deter the passage of this fish up the Mississippi and into the Great Lakes. Now, this isn't really within the corps' mission. They don't really have an awful lot to do with invasive species, but the barrier just sort of fell into their lap as an operating entity.

    Finally, under this issue of sales of live carp in markets, we see states and municipalities taking action to adopt ordinances and laws to prohibit the live sale, possession, and transport of them. The Department of the Interior is also taking action under an American law called the Lacey Act to prohibit commerce in the snakehead and the black carp, which is another species of Asian carp.

    That's pretty much the picture in the U.S.

    The Chair: We'll go to Mr. Cummins for five minutes.

    Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    In your report, Ms. Gélinas, in paragraph 4.23, you say that in its 1999 report, “Safeguarding American Plant Resources”, the National Plant Board of the United States expressed concern about Canada as a documented source of invasive species, and it recommended stronger restrictions on imports from Canada. Could you expand on that, Ms. Gélinas, and does that apply as well to the matter under discussion this morning?

    I don't mean to put you on the spot, Mr. Schornack, but you may wish to comment on that as well.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: Mr. Chair, I will let Mr. Ferguson answer that question.

    Mr. Andrew Ferguson: As the minister will understand, each country plans and responds to invasive species in its own sovereign way. Each country is responsible for looking at the risks abroad in terms of countries that are shipping goods to them and for assessing those countries in terms of their ability to cope with issues such as invasive species. If they determine that a potential source country for goods has not established the capacity to manage the issue in an effective way, they may take measures to respond by closing the door to invasive species from these countries.

    This quote was from the report, and I think it speaks for itself. In the analysis done by the United States, they saw Canada as a potential source of invasive species and recommended, I suppose in lieu of action in this country, that stronger restrictions ought to be applied to goods and services originating in Canada.

À  (1030)  

    The Chair: Mr. Schornack, do you have any comments?

    Mr. Dennis Schornack: Yes. I am not aware that Canada is viewed as a source of invasive species in America. In fact, the Asian carp we saw the example of here is actually an issue where U.S. aquaculture, through escapement in the south of the United States from aquaculture farms that raise catfish, is responsible for this invader threatening the Great Lakes.

    Most of the threats we see are coming from the Ponto-Caspian area in ballast water, so I don't believe that there's any view in America that Canada poses a threat with respect to invasive species. This is why we have this great opportunity to work together to end the mutual threat we see coming from the outside.

    Mr. John Cummins: Thank you, Mr. Schornack. Actually, the commissioner's report was quoting a U.S. document, but you're too kind this morning.

    This issue of ballast water is one of concern to me. It was over twenty years ago now that, to protect our shores, both Canada and the United States required double-hulled oil tankers. I was reading only recently that the deadline for that is looming and that we're not going to be permitting shipments carried in single-hulled tankers into this country, yet the majority of tankers that are shipping into this country are still single-hulled. I don't know how the international shipping agencies or owners are going to meet our deadlines.

    I'm concerned about this ballast water. Given the fact that the shipowners are reluctant to spend money, how are we going to make the system work? Removing oxygen from ballast water is mentioned in the report and so on, but that's an expense. How can we, in both Canada and the United States, be effective in doing something on this issue, given our inability to do anything when it comes to the oil tanker business?

    The Rt Hon. Herb Gray: Perhaps I can start off with an answer.

    When it comes to the Great Lakes, the ships from abroad, from the Ponto-Caspian area, for example, can't get into the Great Lakes unless Canadian and American authorities allow them to go through the international section of the St. Lawrence. If we have effective regulations in both countries and those regulations are assigned to the appropriate agencies in both countries, the ships can't come in here. The shippers will have to decide in terms of economics, in terms of dealing with their customers, what they should do about it.

    A more vigorous testing of the technologies outlined by Chair Schornack may show that there are technologies to deal not only with the ballast water itself but with the real risk, which is the residue after the water is discharged, in a relatively cost-effective fashion. We shouldn't assume that the additional cost cannot be borne by the shipowners. In any event, we are in a position to prevent them from coming into the Great Lakes if we have the regulations and the agencies to enforce those regulations.

    The Chair: Monsieur Comartin.

    Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): I'll follow up on this issue of ballast water. In your third recommendation, Mr. Gray or Mr. Schornack, you're dismissive of simply banning the dumping of ballast water, calling it a blunt instrument. Is there any scientific research behind that position?

    It would appear to me, given the long experience we've had, that in fact that has to be considered as an option and not dismissed as summarily as it appears to have been here. In particular, if Canada and the United States are serious about applying the precautionary principle, I would think that this would have been one of the very first alternatives we would have looked at.

À  (1035)  

    Mr. Dennis Schornack: I referred to the banning of ballast water dumping as a blunt instrument, but it's not a science-based approach; banning ballast water dumping is really a safety issue. Imagine shippers on Lake Superior in 20-foot waves bobbing like a cork on that water without any ballast on board to stabilize the ship. Really, banning ballast water would be tantamount to banning shipping in the Great Lakes, and we don't want to ban shipping. In fact, we want to keep the shipping alive and the door to commerce open, but we want to close the door to invasion.

    The Rt Hon. Herb Gray: Of course, there are regulations in the United States and guidelines in Canada that effectively say that before ships go up the St. Lawrence, they have to dump the ballast water they brought with them from across the ocean. As I've said, if a ship declares itself a no-BOB, a no-ballast-on-board, it's assumed under the existing regime that the vessel captain is telling the truth, which may or may not always be the case. Second, even if it is the truth, there's the residue, in which larvae can generate themselves.

    Then there's also the matter that, once the ship gets into the Great Lakes, as Chairman Schornack has said, for reasons of safety it may be necessary for the ships to have ballast water to have the proper trim or stability. Joe, we know all too well how storms can develop in our area. You have a good point, but in my comments and in Chairman Schornack's you'll see why our recommendation is a nuanced one.

[Translation]

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Ms. Gélinas, has your office taken a position on this? Have you done research in this area?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: No. I would like to add a clarification, however. The regulations mentioned, dealing with discharging ballast water, only cover the Great Lakes.

[English]

    This regulation won't apply on the coast; it's really specific to the Great Lakes. If you're looking for a solution somewhere on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, this is not something you should take into consideration, because it won't apply. This is one aspect I thought might be of interest to the members.

    Mr. Andrew Ferguson: I've heard today from various people who say the impacts of invasive species are in the billions of dollars, with aquatic invaders in at least the hundreds of millions if not the billions.

    I think there are potential solutions to be had by balancing off the cost to the shipping industry against the benefits that would be gained by preventing these invaders from coming in. Perhaps the prevention measures would yield economic benefits that could be applied to helping the shipping industry put in place the appropriate technology. It may not be an all-or-nothing kind of decision we're faced with, but rather a reallocation of resources that might be saved by taking some preventive action.

    The Chair: Mr. Comartin, one more question.

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Do we have any indication from the two sides as to whether in fact there's a commitment here, given what we've heard from Ms. Gélinas and from the accounting office in the U.S., on what is going to be needed? Is there money, to be blunt? Is there money to carry out your seven recommendations? Do we have those kinds of commitments? Do you see them coming from either level of government on either side of the border?

    Mr. Dennis Schornack: There is money being expended right now at every level of government, mostly for cleaning up the mess we have. As we look forward, in America there's pending legislation called the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act. It's a reauthorization of legislation passed many years ago and proposes to authorize the expenditure of considerable sums of money. I do not have a specific number today, but if and when that bill passes, and it's expected to pass within the next 100 to 150 days, there will be significant new resources and authority in the United States.

À  (1040)  

    Mr. Joe Comartin: Do you have a figure?

    Mr. Dennis Schornack: I do not. I will try to get you a figure as soon as I can.

    The Chair: Is there anything on the Canadian side?

    The Rt Hon. Herb Gray: I have nothing to add except that you may wish to consider a brief comment I'm going to make, one based on previous experience about the management of all the activities within the federal government. It is that you may want to consider proposing that the cabinet, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, designate a minister and a department to coordinate and that there be perhaps an ad hoc working committee of relevant ministers to work with that minister. This should avoid what the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development described in a very colourful but, I think, accurate analogy, namely as a game of ping-pong.

    If the cabinet designates the Minister of the Environment as the lead minister and there is an ad hoc committee of ministers from the relevant departments, then there will be the authority to work with the other ministers to achieve the results. Again, I add that perhaps it may be a bit novel, but the precedent is there to monitor and carry out the requirements under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, which is the permanent reference to the International Joint Commission. There is a precedent there, and we have said we are ready and willing to have a similar reference with respect to oversight and coordination of this major initiative, about which we all share a concern.

    The Chair: Madame Gélinas, did you want to add something?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: There are two things, Mr. Chairman.

    First of all, in the answers the departments give us they agree on our recommendation, but there's always a sentence at the end related to the availability of funding, so it's clear that for them this is an issue.

    On the other hand, though, if we look at solutions, this country agreed many years ago to the principle of “polluter-pay” and also to the precautionary principle, which you raised. But if we just focus on polluter-pay, we have an example in Canada where there is a kind of cost-recovery approach to take into account some of the damage and also to establish a special fund to deal with research or anything else we think is a priority in this area. That way, it's not always the government that has to pay the costs related to anything we want to do.

    If we look at CFIA, they work on a cost-recovery basis in some aspects. This is also something the government may consider in the future.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Steckle.

    Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Thank you.

    First, I want to extend some words of welcome to all you folks, particularly our American friends who have joined us this morning. As you can understand, most of us have become very familiar with the work of Mr. Gray over the many years we've worked with him. Certainly, we're pleased to see him in this capacity, sharing the chairmanship with you, Mr. Schornack.

    One of the issues I have focused my efforts on over the past good number of years has of course been invasive species in the Great Lakes, this through the fisheries committee. I'm still disturbed that after so many years, after going through four ministers, and after the many interventions the committee has made with those ministers, we still have not received assurances on some of those issues. This is particularly with respect to our look at and our report on the Great Lakes fishery, where we talked about invasive species, ballast water, and all those issues. It's easy to shift the responsibility for ballast water onto other departments, whether Transport or whatever.

    That being said, we've been very unsuccessful in moving the minister more positively to get more money put towards the sea lamprey control program, this being in contrast to the American commitment to do that, particularly in the state of Michigan. We thank you folks for that. We have made an effort here, but unfortunately the minister hasn't been able to move on that agenda.

    I'm concerned about the fact that pet shops are allowed to bring certain species of aquatic animals into this country and that we have live “immigration” of species such as the one we saw here this morning, the Asian carp. What do we need to do so we can put a stop to that? Someone talked about using good conscience and so not putting them into the Ottawa River. I appreciate the gentleman's good conscience, but maybe not everyone has that quality. We need to act, and I think these are issues we can deal with very quickly and positively.

    I'd also like to know what kind of pre-emptive measures you used in terms of the fact that you dealt very quickly with the snakehead. When it was found to be in a basin of water other than an aquarium, you dealt very quickly with that. What lessons can we learn from that and how must we move? What would you say, Mr. Schornack and Ms. Gélinas? And of course I get back to how we move the minister with petitions. I don't know.

    This is sort of a long preamble, but--

À  (1045)  

    The Rt Hon. Herb Gray: Chairman Schornack is the lead minister with respect to the action in the Chicago area, and we have to commend him for his efforts. I think he should be the one to start off answering your very relevant question.

    Mr. Dennis Schornack: First of all, Mr. Steckle, I wanted to thank you because you, I believe, were the person who, along with this committee, started this issue. You hosted or helped to arrange that reception we had last fall with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission, and the IJC. I thought that really got this issue rolling, and today's meeting is really an outgrowth of that fine work.

    With respect to what can be done, I share your frustration about these live sales. It's why we brought in this example today, and in America we see states and municipalities taking action. The State of Michigan, as you mentioned, and the State of Indiana have adopted laws against possession and sale. We've seen the mayor of Chicago, Mayor Daley, introduce an ordinance to prohibit live sales and markets in Chicago.

    Those are all very good actions, but at the federal level we have an act, the Lacey Act. There's no equivalent, I believe, in Canada that would allow the prohibition of the sale of and the commerce in species that pose a significant threat to the native flora and fauna in America. Action is being taken under that law to prohibit commerce in the snakehead and the black carp.

    However, to get beyond that a little bit, what we really need is--I think I referred to it as a decision support system with respect to ballast water--some forward-looking research. We need a mechanism or system to analyze the potential threats posed by escapement or spread in our two countries of things that are being brought in every day in agriculture, in aquaculture, and in all sorts of trade that's going on everywhere. Our Department of Agriculture allowed in the Asian carp in the 1970s. There was a permit granted so someone could come in and--

    The Rt Hon. Herb Gray: And it was done with the best of intentions.

    Mr. Dennis Schornack: With the best of intentions, but lo and behold, what do we have today? We didn't think forward. We didn't look thirty years down the road and think of its spread and the threat it would pose to the Great Lakes. We need better research, we need more forward-thinking agencies, and we need to pay very close attention to what's coming in and going out of our countries.

    The Rt Hon. Herb Gray: I can make a proposal to the committee, just to take 30 seconds. We have issues, as in any federal country. Are things federal, are they provincial, are they municipal? You know, you might think that if it's retail commerce it's municipal. Perhaps the committee might ask the research bureau and some of its experts to do a paper for you that can be the subject of a hearing on which levels of government would have jurisdiction over the various concerns raised by Mr. Steckle.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: If I may, I'd like to use that opportunity to put a little bit of pressure on the committee. I know a couple of things that the committee can consider in the near future.

    First of all, the strategy that was written in 1995 has almost everything in terms of what needs to be done. So even if the departments come up with a national plan, we can start tomorrow morning to do something about it.

    You may be interested to know that in the quick follow-up with the department for this hearing we heard that the blueprint of the national plan had been written. So I hope it's available.

    I will ask this committee to consider keeping an eye on it in the future and reporting regularly on the progress that will be made in implementing that national plan. It's something that will be there. It should be the action plan to move the talk, to walk the talk, so this is something you may consider. I will re-emphasis the fact, because we talked about it last year in our report, that IJC should have that reference to report back to Parliament on a regular basis.

    Something that is crucial, which is for me is the first step that needs to be done--and maybe your committee can have a look at it and ask DFO what they intend to do--is to provide those standards, those scientific analyses, to move ahead with a good regulation on ballast water. The committee can certainly keep an eye on that.

    Thank you.

À  (1050)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    It is, of course, quite true that there are numerous departments and numerous levels of government. But it is also true that one of the reasons you're before this committee is because the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the ultimate responsibility to protect the fisheries and oceans of this country in the broadest sense of that term. Then it's up to the minister to juggle the various priorities and competing interests. So we certainly appreciate the evidence you're giving today.

    We're going to Mr. Hearn for five minutes.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    Let me thank the committee for coming in. It's certainly good to see Mr. Gray again.

    Your presence just reinforces the presentation done for us last week. I think that's pertinent, because sometimes when a group just comes in and disappears there's a tendency to move on, but we were extremely impressed last week with the presentation. Certainly what you've presented today not only verifies what we heard but makes all of us a little more conscious of the seriousness of this problem.

    I'm just wondering about invasive species. You mentioned the Pacific salmon, which was introduced. How many of what we would determine to be invasive species, in the Great Lakes in particular, were actually introduced to control some other species?

    Do we have any invasive species that are acceptable, have become commercially viable, and we wouldn't want to get rid of? Where do we stand in that area?

    Mr. Andrew Ferguson: I would say there are species that are non-native in the ecosystem that have become commercially important species. For example, in the Great Lakes there are species of salmon, splake, etc. that support a sport fishery.

    I'm not a scientist, so I can't say the extent to which those species have displaced others or caused ecological harm. In the definition provided in our report on invasive species, it is a non-native alien species that harms either the environment or the economy. So it's a little grey, I think.

    We're concerned about the many invaders that are operating to displace commercially valuable species. At least that's one important aspect of this problem. There are intentional introductions, though.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: Basically the ones that do more harm than good, which is common sense.

    I have a couple of other things. You mentioned the green crab on the Atlantic coast, and you mentioned New Brunswick specifically. I haven't heard anything about it in Newfoundland, and I represent Newfoundland, of course. Are you aware of any presence in that area? Again, is it something that could be fished commercially? Crab became the product replacing cod in Atlantic Canada, became a very valuable species, whereas 20 years ago most fishermen in Atlantic Canada would perhaps call crab an invasive species because it just tangled up your nets. It was destroying property, and now of course it's a very lucrative species. We are also starting to fish other types of crab, rock crab, etc.

    Is the green crab a commercial resource? Is that potential there? That would certainly help control its growth or, if we let people do what they do quite often, eliminate it completely.

À  (1055)  

    Mr. Andrew Ferguson: In some of the background research we did in connection with our work, we found that in Portugal, for example, the green crab is food. I think the issue is that in Canada and other places in North America, fishermen simply aren't set up to deal with that species as a commercially viable species. Their equipment and so forth is designed for other purposes, in fact, the native species. It's potentially feasible that they could transition to a new way of life, but in the interim, there's going to be a lot of economic harm done. And it would remain to be seen whether or not there would be markets for these species beyond what we found in Portugal.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: We've talked about jurisdictions and departments here. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans quite often arrange experimental fisheries, also test markets, whatever, so undoubtedly this is an area they should probably be looking at now rather than later.

    Mr. Andrew Ferguson: Could I add one point, though. If a species such as the green crab wipes out potentially six or seven other species, you have a real loss of biodiversity there. I think, again, not being a scientist in this area, a loss of biodiversity is important for a lot of reasons, and one of the reasons is the ability of the ecosystem to respond to other stresses. So if you replace the six or seven species with one species, and then something catastrophic happens to that one species, you can see where that might take us. So biodiversity is important to preserve in and of itself, separate from economic concerns.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: I have one more comment, Mr. Chairman, and a question. The comment is in relation to polluter-pay. It's a catchy phrase, but off our coast in Atlantic Canada we've had a tremendous amount of pollution in relation to pumping out bilges and so on, oil on our waters, a lot of destruction of seabirds, and heaven knows what else. Those who are caught are few and far between, and until very recently the fines were so minimal it wasn't even worth the effort. Certainly it wouldn't go anywhere near paying the costs of going after those polluters. Things have changed a little bit; the last couple of fines have been much heavier, so hopefully we're headed in that direction. You might want to comment on that.

    The other thing is that we've talked about the Great Lakes, but off the Atlantic coast, not only Canadians, but people from Norway, Russia, or wherever, all of them, are suddenly expressing a major concern about the complete lack of science we have about our oceans. Is that also true about the Great Lakes? Is that part of your problem? Of course, it's a much more confined area, a smaller area, but is there a problem in your lack of science in relation to the work you're trying to do?

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: I'll start with your last question. Certainly one of the recurrent findings that come out of our audit is that the research often is not there to provide good information for decision-making. We said that in the Great Lakes; we were saying that again and again and again. So this is certainly an issue for the Great Lakes in particular. I don't know if Mr. Gray would like to add to that.

    The polluter principle is an accepted principle, and whatever the federal government does, it should be considered and factored into some of the options that are available for the government.

    You asked earlier a question about Newfoundland and we didn't answer your question: have we heard about the green crab in Newfoundland?

    Mr. Andrew Ferguson: Not specifically, I don't think.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: There's blue lobster, but not blue crab.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hearn.

    I have just three short questions, if I may, before we conclude. I have a couple of questions for the joint chairs and one or two questions for Madame Gélinas.

    Mr. Schornack, of the three doors, you're talking about the front door. You said “discharge of untreated ballast water brought in by foreign vessels.” This is not the first time we've heard “vessels” and the adjective “foreign”. I just want to be clear. Is it only foreign vessels? If so, how can we be sure that's the case?

Á  (1100)  

    Mr. Dennis Schornack: I don't know the specific ownership pattern of the vessels, but I suspect the salties, the ones that are in transit across the oceans, are largely foreign-flag vessels. Those in fresh waters, the lakers as they are called, are part of the chain too, because they are part of the spread of invasive species from one port to another through inter- and intralake traffic. Those vessels are flagged within the Great Lakes region.

    As for the introduction of species, I would say it is largely through the foreign-flag vessels, but they still must comply with any of the regulations our two countries apply as they enter into our shared waters.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Gray, do you have any knowledge as to the policy reason we've had ballast guidelines over the years instead of regulations, when the United States has regulations?

    The Rt Hon. Herb Gray: I can't give you an answer based on actual knowledge, but I suppose it could be a matter of priorities and drafting regulations--priorities in considering the drafts and moving them through the process. Often, for policy reasons, you start out with guidelines to see how they work and then move to regulations. That's about the best answer I can give you.

    Then, of course, there's always the issue of resources, which has come up around the table here. But for whatever reason, the guidelines were the first step. Hopefully, with your encouragement, they will move on to the second step of being enforceable regulations.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gray.

    I see your hand is up, Madame Gélinas, but I will ask a question and you can bootleg your answer into the answer to my question.

    In paragraph 13 of your remarks you indicated that in 1995 the federal government published its strategy and set out a number of actions. In that 1995 strategy, did the government identify which department was going to be in charge, and if so, how did it identify that? I notice that Mr. Gray made a recommendation to us about cabinet designating a minister. I just wonder if you could tell us if there was any department designated in that strategy, or was it just that the government will do this, the government will do that?

    Perhaps after answering that you can make your comment, and that will conclude our hearings.

    Ms. Johanne Gélinas: If I can refer to paragraph 4.36 of that chapter, it was certainly clear in the biodiversity strategy that the government would figure out who would do what. After that, we said that along with Environment Canada, the lead departments for the implementation of the strategy would clearly be Transport Canada and Fisheries and Oceans. It was clear, upfront, many years ago who the key players would be to implement the strategy.

    I have one last comment, if I may.

    I don't know if the members are aware of this, but the basis of the U.S. regulations is the guidelines that were developed by Canada. We may not be good at implementing regulations, but we're quite good at developing guidelines.

    The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing before us, ladies and gentlemen. It was greatly appreciated. It was very interesting testimony and certainly gives our committee a challenge. We hope we will be up to it and we'll be able to call some of the department officials to try to find out where we're going from here in order to protect the Great Lakes and other waters of Canada and the United States. Thank you very much.

    The meeting is adjourned.