FOPO Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
| ¼ | 1810 |
 |
The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.)) |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright (Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans) |
|
Mr. Robert McLean (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Conservation Service, Department of Environment Canada) |
| ¼ | 1815 |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright |
| ¼ | 1820 |
| ¼ | 1825 |
|
Mr. Marc Grégoire (Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport) |
| ¼ | 1830 |
| ¼ | 1835 |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance) |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright |
| ¼ | 1840 |
|
Mr. Robert McLean |
|
Mr. Andy Burton |
|
Mr. Robert McLean |
|
Mr. Andy Burton |
|
Mr. Robert McLean |
|
Mr. Andy Burton |
| ¼ | 1845 |
|
Mr. Marc Grégoire |
|
Mr. Andy Burton |
|
Mr. Marc Grégoire |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright |
|
Mr. Andy Burton |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ) |
| ¼ | 1850 |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy |
|
The Chair |
| ¼ | 1855 |
|
Dr. John Cooley (Regional Director, Science, Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.) |
| ½ | 1900 |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright |
|
Mr. Bob Wood |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright |
|
Mr. Serge Labonté (Director General, Fisheries, Environment and Biodiversity Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans) |
|
Mr. Bob Wood |
|
Mr. Robert McLean |
| ½ | 1905 |
|
Mr. Bob Wood |
|
Mr. Robert McLean |
|
Mr. Bob Wood |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP) |
|
Mr. Robert McLean |
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer |
|
Mr. Serge Labonté |
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright |
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| ½ | 1910 |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright |
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert McLean |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert McLean |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert McLean |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.) |
|
Mr. Marc Grégoire |
|
Mr. Georges Farrah |
|
Mr. Marc Grégoire |
| ½ | 1915 |
|
Mr. Tom Morris (Manager, Environmental Protection, Department of Transport) |
|
Mr. Georges Farrah |
|
Mr. Marc Grégoire |
|
Mr. Georges Farrah |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright |
|
Mr. Georges Farrah |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright |
|
Mr. Georges Farrah |
|
Mr. Robert McLean |
|
Mr. Georges Farrah |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC) |
| ½ | 1920 |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright |
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright |
|
Mr. Tom Morris |
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn |
|
Mr. Tom Morris |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright |
| ½ | 1925 |
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn |
|
Mr. Robert McLean |
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn |
|
The Chair |
| ½ | 1930 |
|
Mr. Robert McLean |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert McLean |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert McLean |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Marc Grégoire |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Marc Grégoire |
| ½ | 1935 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Marc Grégoire |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Marc Grégoire |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Marc Grégoire |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Marc Grégoire |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Stoffer) |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright |
| ½ | 1940 |
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright |
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer |
|
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright |
|
Mr. Peter Stoffer |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn |
|
Mr. Marc Grégoire |
|
Mr. Tom Morris |
| ½ | 1945 |
|
Mr. Marc Grégoire |
|
Mr. Loyola Hearn |
|
Mr. Marc Grégoire |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¼ 
(1810)
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.)): Good evening. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing our study on invasive species.
I want to welcome our guests and thank them for appearing this evening, and for the record, I'm going to read everybody's name. We have, from the Department of the Environment, Robert McLean, acting Assistant Deputy Minister, environmental conservation service, and George Enei, director, conservation, priority and planning; from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Wendy Watson-Wright, Assistant Deputy Minister, science sector, and Serge Labonté, director general, fisheries, environment, and biodiversity directorate; from the Department of Transport, Marc Grégoire, associate Assistant Deputy Minister, safety and security group, and Tom Morris, manager, environmental protection.
I understand you have some prepared remarks you'd like to make and you've decided how you're going to do it, so we invite you to go right ahead and tell us all you can about invasive species. After that there will be questions.
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright (Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me and my colleagues to appear before you and your committee.
Bob McLean will be assisting me in this presentation, as will Mr. Marc Grégoire from Transport Canada.
[Translation]
Each of our departments have separate responsibilities for invasive alien species.
[English]
We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the views of the previous witnesses to this committee and to present to you our collective actions for combatting the threat of alien invasive species in Canadian waters.
In the recently published book Alien Invaders in Canada's Waters, Wetlands, and Forests--and we do have copies in French and English we would be happy to leave with you--the authors put forth reasoned arguments about the threats these organisms pose to biological diversity.
[Translation]
Many witnesses who appeared before your committee expressed concerns with regard to invasive alien species.
[English]
The threat of alien invaders is indeed a global issue. It is widely recognized that as global commerce and international trade increase, the potential for new introductions of alien invaders also increases. So preventing the introduction of these new species is crucial, but slowing down the spread of the species that are already in Canada's waters is also important.
We agree with previous witnesses in their calls for national action. This national action is being led and coordinated through the cooperative efforts of a number of federal, provincial, and territorial agencies in Canada. Combatting the threat of alien invaders is a long-term, resource-intensive exercise, and we recognize this. Therefore, we must focus our efforts on the very highest priorities.
[Translation]
As a federal department, we are working together to make progress in this area. We are taking concrete and measurable steps based on priorities. We will clarify these steps in today's presentation.
[English]
Bob McLean will outline Environment Canada's leadership in the development of a national plan, I will talk about the role of Fisheries and Oceans in aquatic invasive species issues, and Marc Grégoire will then talk about Transport Canada's responsibilities for ballast water management.
Bob.
Mr. Robert McLean (Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Conservation Service, Department of Environment Canada): Thanks, Wendy.
The Minister of Environment's mandate provides Environment Canada with the responsibility to lead and coordinate the federal response to invasive alien species. That's a responsibility that we are playing with the support of other key government departments. The issue of invasive alien species has been identified in a number of fora as an important one to be addressed. In September 2001 the joint meeting of resource ministers' councils identified invasive alien species as one of the priorities for action in implementing Canada's biodiversity strategy. Those councils, which include the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers,and the Wildlife Ministers Council of Canada, called for a draft plan to address the threat of invasive alien species by the fall of 2002.
We convened a multi-stakeholder national workshop in November 2001, and the recommendations from that workshop became a blueprint for a national plan. That same group of ministerial councils in September 2002 adopted the blueprint and requested that four thematic working groups be established, an invasive aquatics groups, a terrestrial animals group, a terrestrial plants group, and a leadership and coordination working group. The thematic working groups will address priority policy issues, invasive alien species, and pathways of invasion and develop recommendations and implementation plans to address them. We will integrate those actions plans with the blueprint to develop a national plan.
The blueprint identifies three strategic goals to guide the development of a national policy and management framework, integrating environmental considerations into decision-making, in this case the implications of invasive species, coordinating responses to new invasions and pathways, and strengthening programs to protect natural resources that are under pressure through increased global trade and transport. Achieving these goals will improve our prevention, early detection, rapid response, eradication, containment, and control programs. To get there, we need to improve our coordination, refine our legislation and policy tools, work closely with our trading partners, focus on risk assessment, support research, monitor ecosystems, and inform the public.
Developing the national plan is a challenge that will span several phases. The federal departments intend to engage ministers for guidance on a national policy and management framework for invasive species. Federal departments will make prevention our first priority, because it is widely acknowledged that prevention is more cost-effective than managing established invaders. At the same time, we recognize the need to enhance our abilities to detect and respond rapidly to new invasions. Federal, provincial, and territorial cooperation through the thematic groups will identify those priority pathways and priority species that require action. We are also taking action in the short-term to address immediate priorities, including the development of a federal action plan on ballast water. In parallel, a second phase of work will set national and regional priorities to manage some established invaders, and a third phase will facilitate and encourage innovation, research, and development of new technology.
We are indeed moving forward on the issue of invasive alien species. We're responding to the recommendations made by the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, particularly by developing a national plan. We are working closely with 15 other federal departments and agencies; the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development wanted us to ensure the commitment of those other departments. We are working with the provinces and territories through the thematic groups I alluded to earlier. And we will be discussing with the United States and Mexico a path forward on a North American strategy on invasive species.
I would like to thank the standing committee for the opportunity to appear before you this evening, and I'd like to turn this presentation back to Wendy. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is the federal co-chair of the aquatic invasive species thematic group I alluded to in my remarks, and Wendy will be talking about that group in her remarks.
¼ (1815)
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: Thank you very much, Bob.
As Bob did mention, at the meeting in September 2002 the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers, CCFAM, called for a national action plan and established a federal-provincial-territorial task group on aquatic invasive species. I would like to mention that my colleague Serge Labonté is the federal co-chair of that particular committee and could answer any questions on that group.
[Translation]
The task force was responsible for developing an action plan to, among other things, implement specific measures designed to deal with the threat of invasive aquatic species. We all realize that implementing a complete action plan will require several years and the investment of human and financial resources.
[English]
We are focusing our efforts on developing national strategies for reducing the most significant risks. As a start, we're identifying the most important pathways or routes of entry and the most important species.
The aquatic invasive species plan is intended to provide an integrated, comprehensive approach for the management of aquatic invasive species in Canada's waters. The overall goals of the plan are to prevent unintentional or accidental introductions of new species, to slow down the spread of aquatic species that have already become established, and to eliminate, or at least reduce, the unacceptable impacts of aquatic invasive species.
[Translation]
The action plan includes five main elements. Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to list them and to explain the measures that are already in place.
[English]
On leadership and coordination, the deputy minister of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources has taken on the role of champion for the CCFAM task group and will report to the CCFAM through a deputy minister committee. The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and, as I mentioned, Fisheries and Oceans Canada co-chair the task group, Serge being the federal co-chair.
[Translation]
Recognizing the national importance of this issue, all of the provinces and territories are represented on the task group. To ensure the liaison between the federal departments involved, representatives from Environment Canada and Transport Canada also sit on this task group.
¼ (1820)
[English]
On the legislation, policies and programs,
[Translation]
The Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers asked the task group to coordinate the various federal, provincial and territorial activities for the sector and areas of jurisdiction, as well as making up for the urgent shortcomings in applicable legislation, policies and programs.
[English]
As an early response to this change, we are conducting a comprehensive review of federal legislation, and the provinces and territories will also examine their current legislative tools. In addition, various municipalities and port authorities in Canada are instituting control and public education programs. We're also working very closely with United States officials to examine ways of effectively preventing new invasive species from crossing our common borders.
As you've heard and as I'm sure we all understand, preventing the introduction of new alien invaders is one of the most effective means of combatting the threats these organisms pose to aquatic ecosystems.
[Translation]
Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult and costly to control or eliminate invasive species once they have established themselves in an aquatic ecosystem.
[English]
Therefore, the major actions contained in the CCFAM plan will include the assessment of environmental risks, the identification of actions to address the most important pathways, monitoring inspection reporting and enforcement activities where they are most effective, and extended bilateral and international collaborations to enhance prevention actions. The list may appear long, but we believe we're making progress in several key areas.
[Translation]
By targeting the major routes of entry, we can assess the risks associated with the introduction of new species and take action to minimize these risks.
[English]
The major routes of entry and spread in Canadian waters include commercial shipping, certain species in the live food fish trade, recreational boating and personal watercraft, some live bait uses by anglers, aquarium releases and water gardening, and unauthorized fish stocking. Actions are already being taken to shut down some of these pathways. For example, the CCFAM recently authorized a new national code for the introduction and transfers of all aquatic organisms. This new code will address all intentional introductions of aquatic organisms into Canada's waters. Canadian agencies are also working with provinces and municipalities and the United States to better control the spread of invasive species by recreational boating, by the live food fish trade, live bait, and the aquarium trade.
Dr. Chris Goddard of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission in his presentation before this committee remarked on the success of the sea lamprey control program. We agree with Dr. Goddard.
[Translation]
Thanks to the program implemented, sea lamprey populations are now at no more than 10 per cent of their historic levels. Fishing has improved in the Great Lakes. Funding allocated under this bilateral program also enables us to enhance our scientific knowledge of the Great Lakes ecosystems, and we are determined to maintain the success of this program.
[English]
Ballast water is considered to be one of the primary pathways for the introduction of new species into Canada's waters. Since the late 1980s scientists at Fisheries and Oceans have been working closely with our colleagues in Transport Canada by conducting scientific research and providing scientific advice to assist Transport Canada in designing and implementing ballast water management plans. The respective roles of our two departments in this area are clear, so permit me, Mr. Chairman, to illustrate what we in Fisheries and Oceans are doing to assist our regulatory colleagues.
Our research program within DFO includes scientific studies on the pathways of invasive species entering Canada's fresh and marine waters, their transfer once established, and their affects on fisheries.
[Translation]
The results of our scientific studies, coupled with results published in other countries' scientific journals, help to establish ballast water management plans that are effective and efficient.
[English]
For example, our scientific advice assisted in the identification of ballast water discharge zones for international shipping entering the Great Lakes. It is also assisting in designating areas where ballast water should not be exchanged. Our scientists also work closely with international organizations, such as the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and the International Maritime Organization, and we participate in bilateral scientific studies with the United States, largely through the U.S. sea grant program.
On education and stewardship, controls and regulations are not the only means to combat the threat of aquatic invasive species.
¼ (1825)
[Translation]
Last but not least, the CCSAM action plan challenges us to increase public awareness and encourage active stewardship of our natural resources.
[English]
Actions are already under way in this area. For example, we commend the excellent work of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters in their public awareness campaign. Other examples of public awareness campaigns supported by Fisheries and Oceans include our work with Prince Edward Island to control the spread of invasive species--and we do have two of those brochures with us, Mr. Chairman--our work with Ontario to control the spread of zebra mussels and spiny water fleas, and our work in British Columbia through the shorekeepers and reefkeepers species watch program. We also work through the Canadian Coast Guard, which is part of our department, in updating notices to mariners for the discharge of ballast water in specific areas.
I would like to turn to my colleague, Marc Grégoire, to brief you on Transport Canada's role in the management of ballast water, and then I will close very briefly.
[Translation]
Mr. Marc Grégoire (Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport): You have heard from my colleagues in Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans and from previous witnesses about the importance of ships' ballast water as a major pathway for the introduction of new species. I would like to give a brief synopsis of the steps that have been taken to submit this matter to Transport Canada.
Transport Canada is responsible for regulating shipping in Canada and therefore we are the federal department responsible for introducing and enforcing controls for ballast water discharges from ships.
In 1988, the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission raised concerns to Transport Canada and the U.S. Coast Guard regarding the introduction of several species to the Great Lakes, including the zebra mussel, that were being attributed to discharges of ships' ballast water. In response to these concerns, Transport Canada introduced voluntary guidelines for mid-ocean ballast water exchange in April, 1989, for ships destined to the Great Lakes. We decided to introduce a voluntary regime rather than a regulatory regime for several reasons.
Firstly, at that time, Transport Canada had no legal authority to introduce regulations. Secondly, there was little scientific data to support the fact that the proposed solution of exchanging at sea was in fact effective. Thirdly, there was little knowledge concerning alternatives that might be used in cases where exchange at sea was not possible and finally, there were concerns—and this is probably one of the important aspects here—about the safety of conducting a mid-ocean exchange on ships that were never designed to do this.
Recognizing that the threat of species introduction from ships' ballast was from ships on international voyages and that the Great Lakes was not the only area that could be affected, Canada brought this issue to the International Maritime Organization. The IMO is a specialized United Nations agency that deals exclusively with marine matters. Although initial support came only from Canada, the U.S. and Australia, the IMO did produce international ballast water guidelines, based on our guidelines, in 1991.
In 1993, the U.S. Coast Guard introduced mandatory ballast water control regulations for ships headed to the Great Lakes. These regulations are still in place and do apply to all ships entering the Lakes, whether headed to a U.S. or Canadian port.
In 1998, the Canada Shipping Act was amended to give authority to introduce regulations respecting the control and management of ballast water. In consultation with the United States Coast Guard, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and others, Transport Canada developed revised guidelines for the Great Lakes for the 1990, 1991, and 1993 shipping seasons, and subsequently adopted final measures in September 2000.
These national guidelines incorporated and recognized existing Great Lakes, west coast, U.S. and international standards. In 1998-99, Canadian Marine Advisory Council national and regional working groups were formed. CMAC is a forum for Transport Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard, to consult with stakeholders on safety, navigation, and marine pollution. The formation of these working groups focused attention on the ballast water issue and led to national consultations.
I would now like to provide a synopsis of the current provisions that exist for ships coming to Canada today. As I mentioned, we have implemented national guidelines which request that all ships exchange their ballast at sea. We have also identified, where possible, alternate exchange zones for cases where exchange at sea cannot be done due to weather or safety concerns.
We request that ships carry a ballast water management plan in order that instructions are available to the ship's crew on how to conduct safe and effective ballast water controls.
¼ (1830)
Ships are also requested to report on their ballast water and analysis of these reports indicates a very high level of compliance. Separate annexes have been developed for ships headed to the east coast, Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence, the west coast and the Arctic, in order to address the differences in ecosystems and shipping trade.
As well as our guidelines, three ports on the west coast—Vancouver, Nanaimo, and Fraser River—have implemented port regulations for ballast management. All ships headed to the Great Lakes must comply with the US regulations, which require ballast to be exchanged such that the salinity level is at least 30 parts per thousand. The Seaway authorities have also implemented a requirement to follow best management practices, which address issues such as record-keeping, precautions when uptaking ballast and removal of tank sediments, as a condition of passage through the Seaway for ships on both the international and domestic trades.
I will conclude by talking about future developments and the road ahead. We have consulted through the Canadian Marine Advisory Council and other fora with interested parties, including the US, on proposed Canadian ballast water management regulations for the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River. These proposed regulations are currently being drafted under the existing Canada Shipping Act and are expected to be introduced by 2004. The regulations will be harmonized with current US regulations, current Seaway requirements and proposed updates to US regulations.
The ballast water issue has been recognized as the number one environmental priority for the IMO, the International Maritime Organization. A working group at the IMO began development of regulations in 1994 and is expected to finalize them in 2004. However, these will only come into force when a sufficient number of countries adopt them after incorporating them into their national legislation. That is the way the IMO deals with all regulations.
The challenges of developing discharge standards, treatment standards, construction standards for new ships and an implementation scheme that recognizes safety concerns for existing ships have resulted in the long amount of time necessary to draft these regulations.
As soon as the international regulations are in place, Transport Canada intends to incorporate them into its regulatory program in order that all waters under Canadian jurisdiction will be protected. This will be done under the new Canada Shipping Act, 2001.
Although it has taken a long time to develop international regulations, we do feel that because we are dealing with international shipping, the only effective way for us to deal with this issue is through international regulations.
We are a bit short of time; I will therefore give the floor back to Wendy. We have, nevertheless, covered all of the points we wanted to present.
¼ (1835)
[English]
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: Merci beaucoup, Marc.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I certainly appreciate the opportunity you've provided for us to appear here this evening. The witnesses who have appeared before you have expressed concerns about invasive species and about the lack of progress on this very important issue, and we agree with these concerns.
[Translation]
We also agree with the importance of making more progress and acting as quickly as possible. We feel that we are on the right track. Combating invasive species requires coordinated action in many regards.
[English]
Through the coordinated action of our three federal departments and with the support of the Canadian Council of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Ministers, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, and the Wildlife Ministers Council of Canada, we are marshalling our national collective expertise and we will address this threat. Much remains to be done, but we are taking actions to address this important issue.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, everyone, for your presentations.
We'll have questions and answers now. We'll call first on the representative of the Canadian Alliance Party, Mr. Burton. He has 10 minutes.
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your presentation, people.
We do have some set questions here that I think we will get into, but before we do that, after your presentations it appears to me that there's a lot of planning, a lot of research, a lot of study going on, and this is all very well and good, it needs to be done, but I'm a little afraid that we're behind with what needs to be done. What we heard from the previous witnesses is that there are problems already. As we're developing these plans--I know you've spoken about it a bit--how are we actually dealing with the problems that exist today, to nip them in the bud, to make sure we don't exacerbate the problems we have while we're developing regulations and studying the issues? Are we dealing effectively now with the problems we have?
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: I don't disagree with you that we need to act today, but we also feel we do need to have a coordinated plan to move forward, and we can talk about the plan. As to what we are doing today, I'd like to give an example.
On the east coast, as some of you may know, alien aquatic invasive species are threatening the aquaculture industry, in particular the bivalve or mussel industry. We are working very closely with the provinces, in this case particularly Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, to look at the impact on the industry, in this case mussels or oysters, and at methods to remove species such as the club tunicate from mussels. The club tunicate attaches itself to the mussel, competes for food, and effectively smothers the mussels. We are working with the industry, with the provinces, and with the University of Prince Edward Island on that particular issue.
We also have worked very closely with the provinces, industry, and aboriginal groups on perhaps our most recent invasive in that part of the country, which has caused a disease in oysters in Cape Breton, and that is called MSX. In this instance we had a very rapid response from all parties involved. We had a coordinated reaction. We immediately, with everybody's approval, stopped any transport of oysters from one area to another. The education program, which had previously begun, really was put into high gear to alert other industry members and recreational boaters that they must not take their boats from one particular watershed to another.
A number of those things happen, so we are working as we plan, but as I say again, we do feel a national coordinated strategic plan is very necessary while we act on the ground.
Bob, do you want to add something?
¼ (1840)
Mr. Robert McLean: There's a long history of activity on agricultural pests and pests in Canada's forests. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, for example, has been very active for many years in those areas. So there is action now, as we see new invasive alien species emerge. There is a situation, for example, with something called the emerald ash bore in southern Ontario, not an aquatic invasive species, but a recent introduction, stemming from about June of last year. We're meeting next week with other federal departments that could be involved to respond to that issue.
We wouldn't want to leave the impression that we're doing nothing but planning. We are responding to some of these emerging issues. I'm sure people would say we're not responding in a comprehensive or coordinated fashion, but that is the purpose of the national planning effort, to identify some of the highest priorities for action, the species themselves, as well as the vectors or pathways of introduction, so that we can respond to those as well and come up with a more coordinated game plan.
There are other things that I could mention, but I'll stop there for the moment.
Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you for those answers.
According to the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development in 2001, the federal government is ill-prepared to counter the threat of invasive aquatic species. The commissioner's report indicates that the government needs to know three basic things to begin managing invasive species, which species and pathways pose the greatest risk, who will take what action to respond, and how effectively those actions have mitigated the risks, so that further actions may be taken. You have addressed some of those things, but given that multiple organizations and jurisdictions have a role to play, who will put in place a monitoring capability necessary to gauge overall progress on the government's commitment? In other words, who's going to be actually responsible overall, instead of too many ministries getting involved, where it gets lost in the shuffle, so to speak?
Mr. Robert McLean: We really have to await the national planning process that's ongoing. It's not a very long process. We will have a report this fall, and the full national report probably in 2004. The key thing we need to work on at the moment is simply understanding who's doing what now, what the existing capacities are, so that we're better positioned to actually answer the question of who will have the overall responsibility. You also asked about monitoring for effectiveness. I think, through that process, we'll also be answering that question. It won't be one agency, either federally or provincially. I think we will definitely need a network of agencies organized around the particular pathways of introduction.
Mr. Andy Burton: That really doesn't answer my question. We're going to have a network of agencies, we're going to have provincial and federal jurisdictions involved. There still has to be some overall coordinating body or group, or even person. Who would you see then? What ministry should be doing that?
Mr. Robert McLean: I would see Environment Canada continuing in the role it has taken as the federal co-chair of the leadership and coordination thematic working group. I think we will continue to carry that responsibility beyond the deadlines I mentioned.
Mr. Andy Burton: Thank you.
On the subject of ballast water, which we identified the last time as definitely a major cause of some of the concerns about invasive species, it appears you are having some progress there, but can you maybe explain a bit further? If the ship picks up ballast water in the Mediterranean, for instance, and then brings it over here and dumps it off the shore of Canada, does that not still have some effect? How do you control that? It seems to me very difficult. We're talking about fairly large volumes here, and it's got to be very difficult to control where those volumes of water are going when they dump their ballast. How do you deal with that?
¼ (1845)
Mr. Marc Grégoire: I will let my colleague Mr. Morris handle the details, but generally speaking, we would like this ship to discharge the ballast water in mid-ocean and refill with salt ballast water, outside the 200-nautical mile economic zone of Canada. Then the ship would come in with that sea water. That's the principle. But if you want details, there are different means of exchanging ballast water. You can empty the tanks and refill them with new water, you can have a running exchange of water, and it's quite a long process to change the water in the tanks, as we are indeed talking about huge quantities in some cases.
Mr. Andy Burton: I think I understand that, but wherever the ballast water is exchanged, does it not create a problem? Is all we're doing taking that potential problem further out to sea?
Mr. Marc Grégoire: I would direct that to my colleague from Fisheries and Oceans.
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: I think it is a very good question. The assumption, of course, is that if it is exchanged mid-ocean, it isn't creating a problem. The conditions in mid-ocean would be quite different from where the organisms are actually picked up, closer to the land. There are no guarantees, but the belief would be that if there is an exchange mid-ocean, the conditions are such and the dilution factor is such that it should not be creating another problem out in the middle of the ocean.
Mr. Andy Burton: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: On that point, we're addressing two different things, invasive species in salt water and invasive species in fresh water. Obviously, if you pick up ballast water in fresh water, which might pollute the Great Lakes, one of the ways to ensure that it doesn't is to take on sea water and dump the organisms that live in fresh water in the ocean, thereby killing them with sea water, and vice versa, presumably. Is that right?
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: That's the assumption.
The Chair: Okay. We all know, in the words of the American joint chair, these critters sometimes find a way around whatever we try to do.
[Translation]
We will now go to the critic for the Bloc Québécois, Mr. Roy. You have five minutes.
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I agree with your plan and with the fact that prevention is undoubtedly the best way of combating invasive species. Earlier on, Ms. Watson-Wright talked about lamprey, among other species. You told us that we had succeeded in significantly reducing the number of lamprey in the Great Lakes.
I do however have one concern. When we talk about prevention, risks for the environment are undoubtedly minor, because these are applicable measures. Cleaning holds could nevertheless be risky if appropriate products are not used. But there are some scientists who tell us that the products that were used for lamprey were not necessarily environmentally friendly. There was a time when drastic measures were used to eliminate certain invasive species—and that is also true for agriculture. Highly toxic products that were extremely detrimental to the environment were used. Some reports confirm the use of products that may be dangerous to the environment and the water in the Great Lakes or that of rivers that were affected.
The zebra mussel is another problem. How are we going to succeed in eliminating the zebra mussel, which continues to invade our waters at present? Zebra mussels are getting closer and closer, they are moving down the St. Lawrence and will soon reach salt water. They cannot live in salt water, but they can invade other rivers and other waterways.
First of all, are the methods used to deal with lamprey safe? And secondly, what methods are we currently using to deal with zebra mussels, and are they effective?
¼ (1850)
[English]
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: The lampricides that are used seem not to be as harmful to the ecosystem as some of the agricultural products that have been used. Because sea lamprey have been introduced and there are not other lamprey around, and these are fairly specific for sea lamprey, the belief is that it is not as harmful to the other non-target organisms as you might find in agricultural circumstances. However, we do recognize that whenever you're using something that kills an animal, there is a possibility of killing other things around it. It's for that reason that other methods are being investigated. There has been some success. The example I will give you is the use of pheromones, which are really sexual attractants for animals; experiments are being done, and these are being used to attract the males. Then it's very much easier to trap the males and remove them.
I don't disagree with what you're saying. Certainly, we're moving to more natural products to control the sea lamprey, but in the interim what has been found is that the proper use of the lampricides seemingly has little damaging effect on the ecosystem.
At the current time I'm not certain what we're doing on zebra mussels. I can get that information in about two minutes for you, because my colleague who is here from our central and Arctic region is certainly very aware of that. Mr. Chairman, would you like my colleague to address that, or would you like us to provide the information?
The Chair: Would you prefer that he address that, or would you like Mr. Labonté to run blocking for you for two minutes?
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: Dr. Cooley is there. John, would you like to address that?
The Chair: You have to come to the front, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Yves Roy: While we wait for Ms. Watson-Wright's colleague to sit down, I want to tell you that your answer worried me, and I will explain why.
When you talk about the use of lampricides, you always use the conditional tense. You say that we do not know, that perhaps there could be an impact. Are we currently certain that the products used will not have an impact, not only in the short and medium term, but also in the long term?
Obviously, when using a product that kills, as you said, we at least need to ensure that it will not destroy other species in the long term and that it will not badly poison the ecosystem. You always use the conditional tense, and that is what I do not like. That means that we do not have the knowledge and that our research is not detailed enough to truly understand the impact.
[English]
The Chair: Madam, we'll allow you to collect your thoughts about the conditional tense etc. while the gentleman answers this zebra mussel question. That should give you enough time to get a good answer ready.
¼ (1855)
Dr. John Cooley (Regional Director, Science, Central and Arctic Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): I'll answer both on lamprey and zebra mussels, if you'd like.
With zebra mussels, there is little we can do at present, because they are so firmly established, and not only in the Great Lakes, as they've also made their way all the way down through the Mississippi. They are firmly established in tributaries of the Mississippi as well. The one area where we are controlling the zebra mussel population is in closed systems. Closed systems are where water is withdrawn for cooling purposes or whatever at electrical generating plants around the Great Lakes, and at certain times of the year that water has to be treated with compounds, or the zebra mussels will establish colonies inside the pipes, clogging them up and shutting them down. We had a situation years ago, when the zebra mussel was still a new problem, where one of the water treatment plants in the U.S. was within hours of having to be shut down because of clogging by zebra mussels. As a result of that, any plants that take in water for cooling or other purposes around the Great Lakes routinely have to treat that water, because there may be zebra mussels present.
In the open system, as on the floor of Lake Erie, there's really very little we can do. If we start applying chemicals, for example, or use other biological pests, we run the risk of creating more damage by not knowing what it is that would happen. So we have to be very careful there and apply the precautionary principle.
With respect to lampricide, we went through a selection process involving some 4,000 or 5,000 chemicals before we settled on the particular formulation we use. Lampricide, when applied in the correct quantities under the correct conditions, is relatively benign to the ecosystem. There have been many studies showing that the effect of the lampricide treatment dissipates within a matter of days or so, because it's applied in the streams, for the most part. We are confident that lampricide is a good chemical to use in the environment, it can be done safely, but we are not resting on our laurels.
There are many other approaches being used. My colleague Mr. Goddard from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission probably talked about some of them. Dr. Watson-Wright mentioned the use of pheromones, and we hope that'll become a standard for dealing with lamprey populations in the future. We're also using trapping in certain areas already. We also have another program, where males are collected from the environment, sterilized using another special compound, called bisazir, and released back into the environment; if the application is correct, these males can compete just as effectively for females as the unsterilized ones, except that nothing hatches from the nest.
So using this multi-barreled approach, we have been extremely effective in reducing the size of the populations of lampreys, but I have to tell you that in the near future I don't think we are going to eliminate the sea lamprey. It is going to be there for a while, and we will have to control it.
The Chair: Thank you. Merci, Monsieur Roy.
Mr. Wood.
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Thank you.
About a month and a half ago now the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, which has been mentioned a couple of times, were our witnesses, and they stated that several U.S. states through the Great Lakes basin had already prohibited the possession of live Asian carp and snakehead. Some of the witnesses we had that day stated that there was no specific federal or Ontario law or regulation that would ban the import of live Asian carp into Ontario. However, the witnesses also pointed out an interesting thing. Under the U.S. law and with the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, if it is illegal to possess live Asian carp in the States, it would also be illegal in Ontario. Do you think this act could be used to prevent the import of live Asian carp into Ontario, or maybe elsewhere in Canada?
½ (1900)
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: You're speaking of the Lacey Act in the United States?
Mr. Bob Wood: Yes.
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: In fact, several provinces right now are proposing revisions to the provincial fishery regulations to include a ban on the sale and possession of live Asian carp. I think the provisions within the United States will certainly help to prevent the transport of live Asian carp into Canada.
The Chair: Dr. Watson-Wright, I'm sorry. Mr. Wood was referring to the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act, which is not an American act.
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about the Lacey Act, but the Lacey Act is very beneficial in preventing import from the United States, which is where most of this comes from into Canada. As I say, that would be the major prevention. It is also already illegal, under the Fisheries Act, to release live Asian carp into Canadian waters.
Serge, would you like to add something to that?
Mr. Serge Labonté (Director General, Fisheries, Environment and Biodiversity Directorate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans): When you try to control vectors in general, you need all the jurisdictions to work together. Provinces also have a key role to play through their own regulations. What we're doing through the task group under the CCFAM is looking at all the regulations that we have in place to see where the gaps are and to try to fix those gaps by working with other jurisdictions. But as Dr. Watson-Wright mentioned, it's illegal to release those fish into our waters. The issue is how you control that.
Mr. Bob Wood: Mr. McLean.
Mr. Robert McLean: I'll confess to having spent 15 years of my career working on the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act. Dr. Watson-Wright is exactly right in the reference she made to the Lacey Act, as in WAPPRIITA we attempted to incorporate exactly the same provision. If someone in another country violates the conservation laws of that country and brings the wildlife to Canada, possession of that wildlife is illegal. In the specific case you talked about it's an extremely difficult enforcement issue, first and foremost. If the live carp were coming from a state other than one of those that have the prohibition you just alluded to, it would not be a contravention of WAPPRIITA. So there are some really difficult implementation issues with respect to the provision you're alluding to.
The other thing I would draw the committee's attention to is the fact that WAPPRIITA was designed expressly to enable the designation of species we think could be invasive if they were to establish themselves in Canada, and therefore to control the importation. There is a short list of species in the WAPPRIITA regulations now; none of them related to aquatic ecosystems, but through the national plan development process, we will be able to better understand the proper role for WAPPRIITA. It's not the only federal legislation we have, but I think it could play a role.
½ (1905)
Mr. Bob Wood: What level of government would have jurisdiction over something like this?
Mr. Robert McLean: The one that's best placed. Your question highlights why we need the national approach, because the right answer is a combination of federal and provincial law. The federal law is focused on international trade and interprovincial transport, so we have something like WAPPRIITA, and we need the complementary provincial regulations concerning possession, because the provinces control possession, and what I would refer to as simple possession is most easily addressed through those provincial regulations. If you had live carp in your possession, you would be guilty of an offence. The only level of government in Canada that can have a simple possession offence of the type we're talking about now is the provincial. There are some federal laws that could have simple possession as well, but in the case we're talking about it would be provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Bob Wood: Thanks.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wood.
Mr. Stoffer.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your presentation.
I listen to you folks talk about the Asian carp and the challenges you have, and it's no wonder that commercial and other fishing groups get so ticked off at governments and bureaucrats when they hear all the reasons for delay. If I showed up at the Halifax Airport with a leopard-skin coat, the customers officers would stop me right away--not the province, but the customs officers. Why can't the federal government next Friday say, no Asian live carp allowed in the country, period? What's the big deal?
Mr. Robert McLean: I'll give you a bureaucrat's response. We would have to go through the regulatory process. You're absolutely right that we have the regulatory tools to do what you're proposing. We would have to draft the regulation, consult with the public, and then put that regulation in place.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Then why don't you do it? These people have been asking this, not us. When we spoke to them here, they said this is a request they've had for quite some time. Why don't you make the recommendation to the minister to get it done and fast-track it? We're talking about the recreational and commercial viability of fishermen and everything else. We know the Asian carp is deadly if it gets out. You already have the evidence. Why are we playing around with this issue, why don't we just do it? Who are we going to tick off if we do it?
Mr. Serge Labonté: That's a very good point, and all jurisdictions recognize that there is an issue, and on aquatic invasives, the ministers at the provincial and federal levels have agreed that we have to deal with it. They recognize that no one jurisdiction could deal with all the aspects of the regulation. I think the work that task group is doing at this time is very important, because addressing the issue of invasives is not just a question of investing money, doing research, and things like that, it touches regulation, it touches the education of people towards prevention--citizens have a role to play too.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: I appreciate the answer, but we're talking about one species, not a myriad, the live Asian carp and snakehead. Again, I know it's a difficult question to answer, but could you take it back to your ministers and say, look, let's just do this one thing right now?
Second, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters appeared before us, and they do an outstanding job, with very little money, in promoting awareness of invasive species, zebra mussels etc. How much money do they get from the federal government for their promotional activities? Would you have that answer?
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: I don't have that answer, but we can certainly find out.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay. If I'm not mistaken, they indicated to us that they get about $50,000 from the federal government, which is a pittance considering the millions of people they try to promote this to.
And when you form these tasks groups and when you're part of these organizations, is that particular group a major player or a stakeholder in your round table discussions?
½ (1910)
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: Yes, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters is one of our stakeholders, and it is a very important one. We do consult with them.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.
Has there been any thought of getting them more resources to do the job? The way they presented their information, they're the ones who are doing what we would consider the government's job, and they're doing this on a volunteer basis in many cases. They have a small office with very few people, and they're doing, I think, a great job for the citizens of Ontario and, for that matter, the rest of the states and provinces around the Great Lakes. If the government is unable or reluctant to take it on themselves to do as good a job, would it not be possible to grant them additional resources, so that they can continue the great work they do?
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: They do do excellent work, and in fact, there are a number of groups across the country who do similar work, though they may not be as large. If we had unlimited resources, we definitely would give funds to all of them, because the voluntary groups do an excellent job on education of the public.
The Chair: We would like the information. How much does the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters get, specifically in relation to invasive species? I have no idea if the federal government or different departments give it money for other things.
To get directly to Mr. Stoffer's point, is there any federal impediment today, other than the usual practices, that would prevent the federal government from banning the import of live Asian carp? Obviously, you would have to prepare regulations, you would have to do a regulatory impact statement, and you would have to give the usual time. Is there any other impediment to banning the import of live Asian carp immediately?
Mr. Robert McLean: I don't know any. I would very much want to have consultation to find the perspective of Canadians on this issue and how any of their concerns could be addressed through the development of an appropriate regulation.
The Chair: From the bureaucratic point of view--I'm not talking about consulting with Canadians--is there any lack of legislation or any jurisdictional squabbling between the federal government and the provincial government that would prevent you from preparing regulations to ban the import of live Asian carp?
Mr. Robert McLean: No.
The Chair: Precisely. So assuming that the people of Canada think it's a good idea, you could do it, and it wouldn't take you 10 years, would it?
Mr. Robert McLean: No.
The Chair: All right. Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Farrah, please proceed.
Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to go back to ballast water to gain a better understanding of the issue.
You say that a ship that has left a European port and that is moving towards Canada must exchange its ballast water in the middle of the ocean, outside the 200 nautical-mile limit. Some may not do that. What mechanisms are in force to enable you to ensure that this rule is complied with and that the exchange is done properly?
Mr. Marc Grégoire: In cases where a ship is unable to do so, for the reasons that have already been mentioned, which include weather conditions or wind, for example, we consulted our colleagues at Fisheries and Oceans, and we developed an alternative zone in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence. It is an area where the water is very deep and where the weather conditions are generally better than they are in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. So that is where the exchange must take place. But if it is not done there....
Mr. Georges Farrah: If they do not report their situation?
Mr. Marc Grégoire: At present, Canada just recommends this practice, but it is mandatory in the US. Since they cannot enter the St. Lawrence Seaway without going through American waters to get to the Great Lakes, they must have already done it. I do not know what the penalties are for those who have not.
[English]
or how you stop a ship.
½ (1915)
Mr. Tom Morris (Manager, Environmental Protection, Department of Transport): With a ship going to the Great Lakes, the U.S. Coast Guard would stop them at Massena. It's not so much a matter of a penalty, they just don't allow them to enter the Great Lakes; they're turned around and sent back. Once they do the check, the ship has to comply, or it's not allowed to enter the Great Lakes.
[Translation]
Mr. Georges Farrah: Mr. Grégoire, you said earlier that for international regulations to be adopted, a majority of countries must agree to comply with them. And if I understand correctly, that is not yet the case, and that is why we do not have international regulations. Based on your experience, do you think it is possible that a minimum number of countries will agree to do so and that international regulations will be adopted in the not-so-distant future?
Mr. Marc Grégoire: I must clarify that as regards the International Maritime Organization, the draft regulations have not yet been completed; they are still in the draft stage.
The IMO is expected to adopt these regulations in 2004. However, before they come into force, a majority of countries must adopt them, and that may take several years. It may take two, three or even four years for all the IMO member countries to require that the draft come into effect.
As for the east and west coast of Canada, we intend to wait for the IMO to bring these regulations into force. If it were to take too long, we would join our colleagues and the US and bring the regulations into force in about 2006.
Mr. Georges Farrah: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one last question of Ms. Watson-Wright. Could you tell us, in budgetary terms, how much all departments devote to managing invasive species? Approximately how much is the overall budget?
[English]
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: The overall budget for invasive species within my sector, the science sector, is approximately $8 million. That includes what goes to sea lamprey in the Great Lakes. Our work does focus on both fresh water and marine.
Mr. Georges Farrah: Just for DFO?
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: DFO science.
Mr. Georges Farrah: Okay. And Environment Canada has a budget too on invasive species?
Mr. Robert McLean: Not a dedicated budget. We are spending funds on invasive alien species, but not in the amount DFO is spending. We are creating a small shop within our headquarters office to move along more quickly on the national plan. Regionally, we're doing work, for example, within our national wildlife areas, where there are invasive plant species,. With our St. Lawrence action plan, there's a research science component in Quebec looking at invasive alien species. Aside from the small effort I alluded to earlier on with WAPPRIITA on invasive alien species, that would be about the limit of Environment Canada actions.
[Translation]
Mr. Georges Farrah: Thank you.
[English]
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: If I may, Mr. Chairman, CFIA would also be investing in invasive species, but I really have no idea what the budget would be.
The Chair: What's CFIA?
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: The Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Hearn, five minutes.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to come back to a couple of the issues raised already, one about the ballast water. Basically, what you're saying is that the United States has the best of both worlds. They can turn around and say, no, you're not coming in here unless you have exchanged your ballast water--in other words, dump it in Canada before we'll let you into our country. We're not concerned about the fishing boat coming from Nova Scotia necessarily, we're concerned with the bigger boats coming from foreign countries. Those loaded ships coming across the Atlantic Ocean in particular very seldom are going to be in the position where they can have a ballast exchange, so undoubtedly, a lot of that has to be done in the Gulf, as you mentioned, if it was a designated spot. That happens to be very close to the shores of Newfoundland. We can't dump our ballast water in the Great Lakes, because there may be some organisms that cause us problems, so we'll dump it off of Newfoundland, because you've all kinds of problems anyway, and a few more won't matter. I'm sure that's not the intent, but that's the reality of it. I have real concerns with that.
The second question is in relation to the timeframe to put some coordinated effort into dealing with this problem. We're told we'll have a report by 2004, which is almost two years, if we go to the far end of 2004, and then it has to be put into action. We also know how long it takes government to act on anything. So if the invasive species are prolific, we're in for trouble over the next few years.
The other thing was in relation to Peter's question about legislation, and of course, your own. Regulations--and I'm one of those, and there may be others, who have spent some time in cabinets--can be changed at the next cabinet meeting. So if we have rules that need to be changed and the desire is there to change them, it shouldn't be a long process. It's a matter of having a regulation for the minister the next time he goes to cabinet. It's a political decision, and I can't blame you people, but we've certainly procrastinated, and it's about time we started bringing in regulations. Trying to deal with the import of such species is very difficult. The reason it's very difficult is that people like yourselves have not got the legislation to deal with it. So if you had strong, forceful legislation, it wouldn't be difficult.
And the final question would be to Dr. Watson-Wright. How many people work in your division based here in Ottawa, and how many people work in the science division throughout the country, if you know the exact figures, or somewhere close?
½ (1920)
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: I can start with the last question--I'm not sure if I got all the others. We have approximately 1,600 staff in science within Fisheries and Oceans. Under 10% of those are in Ottawa, so around 150. Fifty of those people would be with the Canadian Hydrographic Service, so they're actually working scientists, working engineers.
On the ballast water exchange--and Transport may want to jump in here at some point--the alternative exchange channel, the Laurentian channel, is an alternative only. In fact, it's only supposed to be used if there is a problem with exchanging, for safety reasons, in mid-ocean.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Do you have any idea of how many times there's an exchange at sea compared with in the Gulf?
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: I don't, but Transport may.
Mr. Tom Morris: I believe it was used about four times. It's not that many.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: So the exchange is mainly done--
Mr. Tom Morris: It's done in the ocean.
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: The Laurentian channel was chosen based on some oceanographic work done by Fisheries and Oceans scientists. Our scientists looked at the currents, the salinity, the depth, the density, and what would be perhaps the safest place for them to do this, where we don't think the species would take root. That's why this particular place was chosen. In addition, we do look at sediment samples and water samples from ballasts. We try to do an inventory of species. We look at the viability of the species. The work is going on with that, but certainly, the intent was not to dump it near Newfoundland.
½ (1925)
Mr. Loyola Hearn: On the regulations, I think you've answered that.
Mr. Robert McLean: As one additional comment, we do have regulations or legislation at least, so that we could address some of the issues that are out there, especially on intentional imports, and when we can get a more comprehensive set of regulations in place addressing a longer list of species that could be invasive, I think the issue we'll deal with for a long time is unintentional imports. Somebody said to me the other day, what about the species that are hiding out in the wheel wells of airplanes? I hadn't even thought of that as an introduction pathway. Some of these pathways are going to be exceedingly difficult to deal with. I'm not trying to evade your earlier request for further action on regulation. We'll take that under advisement.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Maybe we can help along those lines.
The Chair: Mr. Clerk, would you put me on a timer, please? I'll take my chances now.
It might have occurred to you folks--perhaps it didn't, but it did to me--to wonder why the Commissioner of the Environment would want to come to the fisheries committee and why the joint chairs of the international joint commission would want to come to the fisheries committee. For me, the answer provided by Madame Gélinas is in her remarks, and in preparation for my questions, I want to remind you of precisely what she said; this will give you an idea of why she came to us.
| 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 stated: “Control or elimination of harmful alien organisms is necessary to conserve biodiversity and prevent the further destruction of ecosystems.” |
| The government's 1995 strategy set out a number of actions it considered essential to the task. As I reported in September 2002, we found that neither the ten-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 arrived. |
You yourselves were giving testimony today that you have to do that.
| 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 gauge 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 ecosystems. As a result, their numbers in Canada have grown steadily. In short, Canada has left the door open to invasive species that threaten our ecosystems. |
She came here as a cry in the wilderness, it would seem to me, because she's been ringing the alarm bells, and nobody's home--or it appears there's nobody home. That's the point she was trying to make. So I'd like to ask some simple questions about dates.
In 1995, when the federal government published its strategy for honouring the pledge made when it signed on to the convention, which department was the lead department in charge of honouring the pledge? Can anyone answer that question?
½ (1930)
Mr. Robert McLean: Environment Canada played a leadership role, there's no question about that. An important characteristic of the Canadian biodiversity strategy, though, is the fact that it's going to take a great many agencies, federal and provincial, as well as Canadians, to implement all the recommendations and strategies that were identified in the Canadian biodiversity strategy.
The Chair: There's no question about that, but that was eight years ago. What's been going on for eight years? You told us about some meetings that started in September 2001 and what's going to happen in September 2003 and 2004 and 2006. What happened from 1995 to 2001?
Mr. Robert McLean: The big policy issue Environment Canada pursued within the context of the biodiversity strategy was species at risk legislation, and that took all the energies of our department. It was a decade-long process and not an easy journey for all of us in Canada. We're now coming, I think, to a point where it's very clear that we're paying attention to the other priorities within the Canadian biodiversity strategy. The four highest priorities the joint ministerial council identified were invasive alien species, advancing stewardship, biological information systems, and biodiversity status and trend reporting. So we're moving towards identifying the highest priorities for action. The strategy is a long document with many recommendations, it can't be done all at once, so we picked off, if you will, species at risk legislation. We have to implement it, and we're moving on with invasive species.
The Chair: But in the early 1990s world leaders, not ministers of Canada, recognized invasive species as one of the most serious threats to our health and to our ecological, social, and economic well-being. We signed on to that convention, and presumably, we signed on also to that philosophy. If endangered species were your most important task in Environment, and I don't for a moment suggest that it's not an important task, why didn't you hand the ball over to another department, so that invasive species could be worked on while Environment worked on endangered species?
Mr. Robert McLean: I don't have an answer for that.
The Chair: Well, it's too bad, because we've wasted eight years, it seems to me. I think this was the frustration of the Commissioner of the Environment.
The joint chairs of the IJC came to us and made a number of recommendations. The Right Honourable Herb Gray said, “We believe immediate”--and I'm going to stress the word immediate, colleagues--“Canadian Government federal action is required to make compulsory, by regulation, improved ships' ballast water management procedures”. So I'm going to turn to Mr. Grégoire and Mr. Morris. According to your evidence, the U.S. began mandatory regulations in 1993, effectively regulating the Great Lakes, as you've already told us, Mr. Morris, because if the ships don't comply with American regulations, they don't get in. They can't say, we want to go on the Canadian side, they just don't get in. So effectively, Transport Canada has ceded jurisdiction to the United States by doing nothing and allowing the United States to have mandatory regulations. Is this not true?
Mr. Marc Grégoire: That's one way to put it. Another way to put it is that we have positively benefited from that regulation, thus diminishing the urgency to have such a regulation in Canada.
The Chair: Kind of like parasites. Why couldn't we have immediately followed with our own regulations, given that they were designed on our voluntary regulations?
Mr. Marc Grégoire: In 1993 we didn't have the enabling legislation to do that, so we put that in the mill, and eventually, we amended the Canada Shipping Act to provide for the enabling legislation. This happened in 1998, so we now have the enabling legislation, and the regulation is about to be there. It's being drafted now.
½ (1935)
The Chair: In 1998 you had the enabling legislation.
Mr. Marc Grégoire: Yes.
The Chair: It is now 2003, five years later, and the regulations are just now being drafted?
Mr. Marc Grégoire: Yes, sir.
The Chair: Why? Why the delay?
Mr. Marc Grégoire: Again, the urgency was not there, sir, because we benefited from the American regulation.
The Chair: But the urgency was there, considering that the world leaders of our planet identified this as a huge risk to our health and our economic well-being. The United States saw the urgency by putting forward the regulations as mandatory, and we didn't do it. I'm at a loss to understand why it doesn't seem to Canada to be the kind of problem world leaders saw it to be over a decade ago.
Mr. Marc Grégoire: We've had our voluntary guidelines in place since 1989, we have amended those voluntary guidelines on numerous occasions, and we find that those voluntary guidelines are in fact followed. So the advantage of a regulation is again diminished. If the ship owners were not following the voluntary guidelines, of course, it would have been urgent to come up with a regulation. But this wasn't the case, the shippers are abiding by the voluntary guidelines.
The Chair: Okay, my ten minutes are up.
Mr. Stoffer.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Folks, as we speak, is it possible for a ship to get into the Great Lakes and dump some invasive species into the Great Lakes unknowingly? You're nodding your head.
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: Yes , it is.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Peter Stoffer): Okay. I knew that, because that's what the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters said. In 1993, as my chairperson said, the United States put in strict regulations. World leaders said that it was an imperative, and yet this is 2003 in March, and you've said a ship can still come in and dump invasive species in the Great Lakes. Call me naive, call me ignorant, but I find that absolutely incredible. I appreciate your answer that you had other concerns dealing with species at risk, which is very important, but I find it incredible that we have such large departments, Transport, Environment, you name it, and nobody could run with this one to get it done. You said it's better to go for prevention than deal with it afterwards, and you're right. For example, if you're not sick, you don't waste any money on the health care system, which is good. If you prevent invasive species from getting in, you don't have to spend $8 million a year on the lamprey program, for example. That money could have gone to other things. As you say, invasive species can still come into the Great Lakes via a ship, and if another one gets in, we have to spend millions of dollars trying to correct the situation. I just find it absolutely unbelievable.
But my real question for you concerns the science budget. We've heard, especially on the east coast of Canada, that the budget DFO assigns is not what it should be. You indicated before that if you had budgets, you could give more money. You talk about all these programs and sessions you're having and everything. Do you have the budget to do everything you plan to do? And when will we see concrete finality to all of this? When will we be able, as a committee, to go to the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and say, here it is, everything you've asked for, to the Commissioner of the Environment, everything you've pointed out is fixed? When do we see the end date on this one? Because I certainly don't want to be here in five years--well I do want to be here in five years as an elected official, but I certainly don't want to have to do what Mr. Wappel has done and say, all right, another five years has gone by, and we're still talking about it. When will we see this finished once and for all?
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: To go back first to your comments on regulations, quite frankly, regulations alone will not prevent the introduction of invasive species into the Great Lakes.
½ (1940)
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Monitoring might.
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: Monitoring will help, but it won't prevent it. More is needed in the way of treatment and new technology, for example, ships that don't need ballast water--I don't know if that's a possibility, but I'm told someone in Japan or somewhere is working on this. So despite the fact that the U.S. has regulations and Canada will have regulations, the regulations aren't going to prevent that in themselves.
Do I have the budget to do this? I assume you mean how we're going to move forward on the plan for aquatic invasive species. We will have to come forward with the plan and look at the resource implications, but in the midst of all this the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is undergoing a very extensive evaluation of itself, the departmental assessment and alignment project, where we are looking very closely at the resources we do have, what we need, and where the priorities need to be. I do believe we will be able to establish this as a priority and we will align resources for it.
I don't know that we ever will see the end of this, but I will say, if we are all back here in five years, we will be talking about the progress we've made in the five years, not about the fact that nothing has happened, because things are happening and we will make progress. It still won't be the end of it.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: I gave some of you an e-mail from Dr. Paul Brodie, who's developing a system on ballast exchange. The system is to heat the exchange. If at a later date I could get some opinions from the various officials who are here, I would greatly appreciate that, because I'd like to send them back to Dr. Brodie to let him know what your departments think of his idea at this time.
Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright: We'd be delighted.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.
Mr. Hearn.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a couple of questions following along the same line, in relation to monitoring of people who might be dumping ballast within the Great Lakes. We talked about the honour system, the voluntary compliance. That's like people who have quotas. As you know, Mr. Chairman, off the coast of Newfoundland and the continental shelf, there's no real enforcement, but they all know what they're doing. They volunteer to catch what they're given, and we all know what happens. What type of monitoring and enforcement programs do we have? Have any charges been laid against any vessel for dumping ballast water in the Great Lakes? What part do you play in the dumping of their fuel waste or the cleaning out of their bilge water, including the oil, off our coasts? This is certainly a major problem off our coasts, and very seldom is anybody caught. One of the last vessels caught was given a substantial fine, and that's a move in the right direction, even though the owner might not like it. Have we been doing similar things to people who are dumping ballast water in restricted waters?
[Translation]
Mr. Marc Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, my colleague, Mr. Morris, will answer the question.
[English]
Mr. Tom Morris: As far as the monitoring goes, right now, as you said, it's a reporting process. If the ship reports that they weren't able to exchange or have never heard of our guidelines for some reason, one of our surveyors visits the ship and makes them aware of the guidelines and that they should be trying to make the exchange. If they think it's unsafe, they discuss it with them. We have had R and D projects looking at what was in the ballasts, but these have been set programs where someone is hired to go to do sampling.
As we said, we only have guidelines at this point. There's only one case I'm aware of where we actually charged a ship, and that was because the ships are required to report to us. Someone went down, again in one of these R and D studies, and they reported that they'd done an exchange at sea and everything was perfect, but it was fresh water that couldn't have been taken on at sea, with a lot of organisms in it. We did charge them with providing false information. That is the only legal case we've had. Again, because we have guidelines, we can't lay a charge for actual discharging the ballasts.
½ (1945)
Mr. Marc Grégoire: However, if a ship discharges oil, that's different. We do have regulatory arms to enforce there.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: If we catch them.
Mr. Marc Grégoire: Yes, of course.
The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing before us this evening. I don't want this to be overkill, and it may seem that way, but I'm happy to see that something is happening, albeit, in my view, a little too long in coming. I want to end with two of the quotations that were given to us by our previous witnesses, and I'm hoping you folks will remember these two quotations and take them to heart and take them to your ministers, particularly in our case, when the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans reads our report, whatever it may be.
The Commissioner of the Environment said this:
| 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. |
Mr. Schornack, the American chair of the International Joint Commission said this:
| Let me be clear. Invasive species are the number one threat to the biological integrity of the Great Lakes. They are the number one threat to biodiversity, pushing some native species to the brink of extinction. They are the number one threat to our biosecurity, putting cultures, lifestyles, and economies that are tied to the Great Lakes at risk. In short, invasive species are the number one threat to the ecological and economic health of the Great Lakes. |
That is an alarm bell, a clarion call for action, and we encourage you to remember it. God speed in your work, and thank you for coming.