ENVI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, February 23, 2004

¹

1535

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

Mr. Greg Farrant (Manager, Government Relations and Communications, Ontario Conservation Centre, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters)

Ms. Francine MacDonald (Invasive Species/Aquatics Biologist, Ontario Conservation Centre, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters)

¹

1540

¹

1545

¹

1550

¹

1555

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC)

Ms. Francine MacDonald

Mr. Bob Mills

Ms. Francine MacDonald

Mr. Bob Mills

Ms. Francine MacDonald

Mr. Bob Mills

Ms. Francine MacDonald

Mr. Bob Mills

Ms. Francine MacDonald

º

1600

Mr. Bob Mills

Ms. Francine MacDonald

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

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

Ms. Francine MacDonald

Mr. Greg Farrant

Mr. Bernard Bigras

º

1605

Mr. Greg Farrant

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Ms. Francine MacDonald

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Francine MacDonald

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Francine MacDonald

Mr. Paul Szabo

º

1610

The Chair

Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

º

1615

Ms. Francine MacDonald

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

Ms. Francine MacDonald

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

Ms. Francine MacDonald

Mr. Greg Farrant

º

1620

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

Ms. Francine MacDonald

Mr. Bob Mills

Mr. Greg Farrant

Mr. Bob Mills

º

1625

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.)

Mr. Greg Farrant

Ms. Francine MacDonald

Hon. Diane Marleau

Ms. Francine MacDonald

º

1630

Hon. Diane Marleau

Ms. Francine MacDonald

Hon. Diane Marleau

Mr. Bob Mills

The Chair

Ms. Francine MacDonald

Hon. Diane Marleau

Mr. Greg Farrant

Hon. Diane Marleau

Mr. Greg Farrant

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

º

1635

Ms. Francine MacDonald

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

º

1640

The Chair

Ms. Francine MacDonald

The Chair

Ms. Francine MacDonald

The Chair

Ms. Francine MacDonald

º

1645

The Chair

Ms. Francine MacDonald

The Chair

Ms. Francine MacDonald

The Chair

Ms. Francine MacDonald

The Chair

Ms. Francine MacDonald

The Chair

Ms. Francine MacDonald

The Chair

Ms. Francine MacDonald

The Chair

Ms. Francine MacDonald

The Chair

Ms. Francine MacDonald

The Chair

Ms. Francine MacDonald

The Chair

Ms. Francine MacDonald

The Chair

º

1650

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

The Chair

Mr. Clifford Lincoln

The Chair

Mr. Greg Farrant

The Chair

Mr. Greg Farrant

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

---

NUMBER 003

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, February 23, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good afternoon.

[Translation]

    Good afternoon and welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Today, invasive species head up our agenda.

[English]

    Today we are very pleased to have the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Welcome to the committee.

    Would you like to make a brief statement so that members of the committee can then ask you questions? When you take us through whatever you wish, don't forget the spiny water flea, otherwise it would be a terrible oversight. We will be listening to you with great attention.

    Mr. Greg Farrant (Manager, Government Relations and Communications, Ontario Conservation Centre, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters): Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you very much for providing us with an opportunity to appear before you today. As many of you know, with me today is Francine MacDonald, an invasive species and aquatics biologist.

    Just as a brief background, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters was founded in 1928. It's the largest non-profit, non-governmental conservation organization in Ontario, and the second-largest in Canada. The OFAH also acts for a group known as the National Coalition of Provincial and Territorial Wildlife Federations on national issues affecting the outdoor community. It includes every wildlife federation in every province and territory in Canada.

    For more than 15 years, the OFAH has been at the forefront of the fight to control and eradicate both land- and water-based invasive species, and to inform both the public and various levels of government about the potential damage and cost of damage to our ecosystems, fish, and wildlife populations, and the recreational and economic benefits that accrue from our natural resources. We believe that the Government of Canada, and more specifically the departments of Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, Transportation, and their provincial counterparts, have a joint responsibility to commit the necessary resources to address this serious national issue.

    We are pleased that over the last two years the agencies and governments named above have shown more willingness to work together to develop a cohesive response to invasive species, and develop a national framework to deal with the introduction of these threats to our natural resources. In fact, later this week a number of agencies will be gathering in Montreal for the rollout of the first draft of a national plan to address this issue.

    However, while this framework exercise is taking place, new introductions of invasive species are appearing on the scene through pathways such as imported wood products, aquariums, horticulture, recreational watercraft, and the live-food fish industry, all of which threaten our forests, lakes, rivers, and wetlands.

    Our presentation here this afternoon will focus on how we believe we need to act now to effectively prevent further new introductions of invasive species through a comprehensive public education and awareness program, and to identify some of the holes that currently exist in the plans being developed by the government.

    Thank you for allowing me to make a few opening remarks. I'll now turn it over to Ms. MacDonald.

    Ms. Francine MacDonald (Invasive Species/Aquatics Biologist, Ontario Conservation Centre, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters): In overview, this presentation will describe basically the definition of what an invasive species is, the threat that invasive species pose to Canada's woodlands, wildlands, and waters, and the gaps in Canada's response to invasive species, and particularly the role of the OFAH in invasive species prevention.

    To start off, what is an invasive species? There's often confusion as to what the definition of an “invasive species” actually is, so I just want to basically describe what they are. A species is considered alien or exotic if it's been introduced outside of its normal past or present range, and this could include plants such as the common garden petunia, or agricultural species such as corn or wheat, but when we start to talk about alien species with the term “invasive”, we're talking about species whose establishment and spread threaten ecosystems, habitats, and species with economic and environment harm, and there are many well-known examples of this, including the zebra mussel and the sea lampry.

    So why are invasive species so successful? The reason is that they lack natural predators in their new environment, and they're very adaptable. They have very high reproductive rates, and they can often out-compete native species for food and habitat. Invasive species are introduced in three primary ways, through transportation, trade, and travel. Within the transportation pathway, ballast water discharges from ocean vessels are the primary method of introduction of aquatic invaders. Within the trade pathway, the importation of alien species for aquarium, horticultural, and the bio-food fish industry are also primary concerns. And within the travel pathway we're dealing with recreational activities such as boating and angling that can spread these species within our inland waters once they've been introduced to the environment.

    Invasive species threaten Canada's biodiversity. Introductions threaten our native species. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada has estimated that 25% of Canada's endangered species, 31% of threatened species, and 16% of vulnerable species are in some way at risk because of non-native species. Figures for the U.S are even more alarming, suggesting that over 40% of the species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the United States Endangered Species Act are considered to be at risk primarily because of competition with and predation by introduced species.

    In addition, the effects of climate change and global warming will only exacerbate the problem of invasive species introductions.

    Invasive species threaten Canada's waters. Canada's waters and aquatic ecosystems are particularly threatened. Researchers predict that aquatic invasive species will contribute to the extension of native freshwater species in North America at a rate of 4% per decade. This is a faster rate than that occurring in tropical rainforests. Aquatic invasive species particularly threaten the productivity and function of the Great Lakes. More than 160 alien species have already become established in the Great Lakes, more than 10% of which have had significant ecological and economic impacts. These impacts threaten the health of our Great Lakes fishery, which is worth more than $4 billion to Canada's and the United States' economies.

    Lesser known but more devastating are the impacts of aquatic invasive species on our inland waters. Canada's plentiful and diverse lake ecosystems are one of our greatest assets from which Canadians derive numerous social, recreational, and economic benefits. In Ontario alone there are more than 250,000 lakes that support a recreational fishery worth more than $2 billion. These vital lake ecosystems are more vulnerable to impacts because their smaller size and lower species diversity enable invasions to occur much faster and more pervasively. Scientists believe that invasions will be the primary cause of extinctions and biodiversity loss in our inland lake ecosystems in this century, and there are many examples of aquatic invasions. For example, there is the zebra mussel invasion to inland lakes in Ontario, which has caused numerous habitat alterations and disrupted fish communities. The spiny water flea is a tiny European crustacean that has affected zooplankton diversity in more than 40% of our 50 inland lakes where it's invaded.

¹  (1540)  

    Questions are also being asked with regard to the spiny water flea invasion as to what types of impacts it might have as a mercury accumulator and further up the food chain in fish.

    Invasive species are also a significant threat to Canada's wetlands. Invaders such as purple loosestrife vigorously out-compete native plants and degrade the wetlands' habitat value for nesting waterfowl and nursery and spawning habitats for fish. Spread as an ornamental plant, purple loosestrife has spread throughout eastern and central Canada and is rapidly spreading into the prairie provinces and British Columbia.

    Another species I want to highlight that's affecting wetlands is the European water chestnut. It's a new invader, which was raised as an issue by our Quebec Wildlife Federation affiliates. Water chestnut is a floating plant, native to Europe, which can completely cover the surface of wetlands, ponds, bays, and waterways. The picture in your handout shows an invasion of water chestnut in the Richelieu and south rivers in Quebec. This was once an open waterway. It has now been completely obstructed by European water chestnut. Recreational activities, such as boating, swimming, and fishing, have become impossible in some parts of this waterway.

    Invasive species are also an enormous threat to Canada's vital forest ecosystems and forest industry. For example, recent invasions of forest pests, such as the Asian long-horned beetle in the Toronto region, threaten the health of a major component of Canada's hardwood forests, including Canada's national symbol, the maple tree. The invasion of the emerald ash borer, which is a destructive insect pest of ash trees, was first reported in the Windsor and Detroit area in 2002, and it has destroyed thousands of ash trees. A massive campaign has recently been undertaken by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to contain this pest this winter. To put this in perspective with regard to the impact these forest pests could have, Canada's hardwood forests are worth more than $1.2 billion annually to the Canadian economy.

    Invasive species also threaten Canada's wildlife. Species introductions can severely alter habitat and reduce the availability of food and cover for wildlife. In addition, species introductions can have many unanticipated effects. For example, over the last five years there have been numerous outbreaks of botulism type E in the Great Lakes basin, particularly in Lake Erie. These outbreaks have killed literally thousands of fish-eating birds, such as loons, mergansers, and cormorants, in addition to numerous fish.

    Scientists believe there may be a potential link between these unusual outbreaks and the introduction of the zebra mussel. The theory is that zebra mussels, which are bottom feeders, have altered lake bottom conditions, creating an oxygen-depleted zone in a very nutrient-rich area within the bottom of the lakes, which fosters the growth of the microsporidium clostridium and the type E strain of botulism and have facilitated the transfer of this toxin to bottom-feeding fish and birds, such as loons. While scientists are still exploring this theory, it demonstrates the pervasive and ecosystem-wide effects of invasive species introductions to Canada's wildlife.

    Given the major effects of invasive species on Canada's biodiversity, the health of our woodlands, wildlife, and waters, and our economic development, the government has made several major commitments to deal with this issue, both on the international stage and to the citizens of Canada. These include the ratification of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992 and the Canadian biodiversity strategy in 1996.

    In response to these commitments, finally over the last two years Canada has begun to develop a national plan on invasive species, which we are looking forward to reviewing at their stakeholder consultation later this week. The development of this national plan will include many governmental agencies at the federal level, including Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Transport Canada, Canada Customs, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and many others.

    While we've not had time to review the national plan, we would like to take the opportunity to identify some of the gaps we feel exist in Canada's current response to invasive species. Key to the issue is the lack of a national lead on invasive species to coordinate actions.

¹  (1545)  

    Numerous agencies can be involved in response to species invasion, leading to a very piecemeal approach. Further, because we do not have a single agency responsible for invasive species, often the agencies responsible for directing responses may not have the necessary expertise or the funding. I think a good example of this is the lead role of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in the emerald ash borer crisis. Doesn't an agency primarily responsible for dealing with agricultural pests and diseases have the expertise and staff to deal with a forestry pest and associated environmental concerns?

    For the citizens in the Essex region, where the containment program for emerald ash borer has involved the creation of a 30-kilometre long and 10-kilometre wide ash-free zone and their trees are being cut by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, their primary question has been, who is going to lead the restoration program after the trees are removed? Who is going to replant their lost trees, and who is going to enforce the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's current ban on the movement of firewood in the region? If we can't stop these things from happening, why are we even attempting to stop the spread of this beetle?

    Canada also needs a targeted invasive species program that focuses on prevention and includes the following.

    Regulations: we need regulations dealing with ship ballast. Currently, we have no regulations; we are dealing with voluntary guidelines right now. Although Transport Canada has introduced draft regulations, they still don't deal with the primary issue, which is NOBOBs, which are ships that carry no ballast on board and are actually considered the primary vector of invasive species.

    We also need risk assessment initiatives, which are critical to identifying invasive species of concern that are being imported for the horticultural, aquarium, and live food fish trades. We need early detection and monitoring programs to quickly identify species invasion and undertake effective containment or control.

    Government must also encourage the development of research specialists who can provide the expertise to identify new species introductions and appropriate control programs. Rapid response plans are critical in detailing the steps and agencies that are responsible for dealing with such introductions in a timely manner. Also, these response plans must identify who actually pays for these programs.

    Enforcement is also critical. We need regulations and quarantines on species importations, and we need these things to be enforced.

    Restoration programs are probably the most important part of the invasive species program. They are critical to initiating the recovery of affected ecosystems and to garnering public support for control.

    Other critical needs within Canada's invasive species program are: long-term stable funding commitments; coordination with international agencies; collaboration with the provincial agencies; and partnerships with non-governmental organizations such as the OFAH, industry, and stakeholders.

    The points we have identified are not new. They were also identified in the commissioner of the environment's report on invasive species, the IJC's Eleventh Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water Quality, and the recent fisheries and oceans committee's report, Aquatic Invasive Species: Uninvited Guests.

    Highlights from the fisheries and oceans committee report were the recommendations to support a reference to the IJC to coordinate binational efforts on invasive species, full funding to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission's sea lamprey control program and the OFAH's invasive species awareness program.

    I've highlighted these points because I think national collaboration and partnership with stakeholders are the key to effectively dealing with the problem of invasive species.

    I would like now just to briefly describe the role of the OFAH as an NGO in dealing with the problem of invasive species. Recognizing the importance of protecting lake environments, the OFAH initiated the invasive species awareness program in 1992 in partnership with the Ministry of Natural Resources. For more than a decade, we have worked to raise public awareness of invasive species to prevent their spread, have contributed to research, and have conducted province-wide monitoring programs. In 2003, the OFAH and MNR jointly committed $1.2 million over three years to invasive species outreach initiatives.

¹  (1550)  

    Central to our program has been the invading species hotline. It's a toll-free number that acts as a clearing house for the public to contact us for current information on invasive species and to report new sightings. These citizen reports have resulted in the detection of new invaders to the province and the continent. We were one of the first agencies to detect the introduction of the fish hook water flea, which is a major problem in the Great Lakes basin.

    Over the last decade, the hotline has received thousands of requests for information and distributed hundreds of thousands of educational materials. Our program has also been extremely successful in coordinating partnerships with a wide variety of government and NGOs to combine our awareness efforts.

    Working with the Federation of Ontario Cottagers' Associations and York University, we've organized more than 170 lake associations to participate in our province-wide monitoring programs for zebra mussels and spiny water flea. This network of cottagers has also coordinated community-level awareness programs in areas we have identified as vulnerable to invasion.

    The OFAH has also been involved with control initiatives for purple loosestrife. We've assisted hundreds of volunteer groups to control purple loosestrife in local wetlands around the province.

    Recently, we've joined in partnership with Ducks Unlimited Canada to implement a biological control program for purple loosestrife. The beetles, which were approved for release by Agriculture Canada and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, feed on the leaves of the purple loosestrife and can reduce purple loosestrife densities more than 80%.

    The OFAH has been involved with many other educational initiatives, including working with boaters, aquarium hobbyists, anglers. We've also worked internationally with the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and the International Joint Commission to raise political awareness of the issue and collaborate on outreach materials. We're also a member of the U.S. Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species. We are the only Canadian non-governmental organization represented on this panel.

    So, how to build on this success? As an NGO and working with numerous partners, the OFAH has been able to make great strides in raising public awareness of invasive species. However, to build on this success and truly make a substantial impact on public perceptions and behaviours, we require the support of both federal and provincial governmental agencies.

    We have submitted a proposal for a national awareness program to Environment Canada and DFO, a copy of which is available for your review. Working with our provincial and territorial wildlife federation affiliates, this program will build on existing partnerships with various industry and recreational pathways.

    Invasive species are one of the greatest and most urgent threats to Canada's biodiversity and the health of our woodlands, wildlife, and waters. There are numerous gaps in Canada's current approach to dealing with the threat of invasive species. These gaps must be addressed in order to adequately address the issue.

    Opportunities exist for partnerships between international agencies, governments, industry, research institutions, and NGOs, such as the OFAH, to assist in the effort to deal with this major challenge.

    Thank you very much.

¹  (1555)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. MacDonald and Mr. Farrant.

    We'll now have a round of questions, five minutes each, and perhaps a second round.

    We start with Mr. Mills, please.

    Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC): Thank you. I thank our guests for appearing.

    I have several questions. First of all, do you have any idea of the cost of treating ballast water? If we were to treat it completely so that would become less of a problem, do you know what it would cost?

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: I don't know how much it would cost, but I don't think that Canada is investing any funds into investigating what's required to develop the technologies to actually treat the ballast water. We haven't even started with that yet.

    I think what we should be doing is focusing our energy on research in order to come up with the appropriate technologies to treat the ballast, and then look to the shipping industry to start to take on some of those costs, once we have developed the technologies they can use.

    Mr. Bob Mills: I understand that places like Singapore, Singapore harbour, have strict regulations that ships coming in there and dumping their ballast water must have a level of treatment. I'm not sure how many other harbours are that way, but it would seem to me maybe the technology is there. It's just a matter of finding out. Then I think most important in your argument, and our argument, would be to find out what that is going to cost, and then argue that it's a good investment.

    You put some confidence in the IJC being able to do anything. I guess my experience most recently with them is that they can talk about things, but they really have no authority to enforce anything. They will only recommend to the government if in fact they are requested to do that. It seems like a very weak arm.

    What would your comments be about that?

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: I think the role of the IJC is to encourage the collaboration of the U.S. and Canada in efforts on invasive species. Coordination is needed. The IJC is responsible for the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, ensuring that Canada and the U.S. fulfill their obligations; but you're right that it's also up to the countries to fulfill their obligations—

    Mr. Bob Mills: The message I've gotten, when it regards cross-border things, is that unless a specific government formally requests that we do the research on whatever, we don't do it. In other words, they can know there's a problem; they can be petitioned by the public, they can be petitioned by agencies, but unless a specific formal government request comes, nothing happens. This seems like a pretty lame way of dealing with problems, because most times people close to the issue, like yourselves, know what those issues are way ahead of government. Anyway, that's just my observation.

    On things like loosestrife, I guess that whenever I hear you say that you're going to bring in this species to eat the leaves of whatever, I just wonder—having a biology background myself—if sometimes in the past we've introduced things that then become worse predators than the thing we were trying to get rid of. I guess that's always a concern in your education program, that you make darn sure you take that into consideration.

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: Just for emphasis, in the biological control program for purple loosestrife, many years of research were spent prior to the beetles even being brought to the U.S. and Canada. The research was conducted by Agriculture Canada and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. They studied purple loosestrife in Europe, and looked at the various insects that utilize purple loosestrife, and then narrowed it down to a certain number of species that use purpose loosestrife throughout their entire life cycle. So they had a great degree of assurance when they brought them to Canada that these would not affect native species. They have been using the beetles for the last decade, and we have not encountered any negative effects.

    Mr. Bob Mills: Finally, the fisheries committee did an extensive study on invasive species and made a number of recommendations. I wonder if you feel that the government has responded to that, and has done enough to deal with the issue of invasive species. They made a number of recommendations.

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: I think the standing committee did an excellent job. I thought the report was very well written, and I thought the recommendations were excellent.

    Mr. Bob Mills: Has there been action?

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: I don't think there has been action on those recommendations, and that's what's needed.

    As you mentioned before, the IJC makes recommendations through their biennial report, and the standing committee has made recommendations, but sometimes it doesn't seem like there's any follow-through on the recommendations.

º  (1600)  

    Mr. Bob Mills: It's heavy on discussion and heavy on recommendations, and very short on action on many of these issues.

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: Yes.

    We've known about the problem of invasive species for well over a decade, and we're still standing in the same place we were 15 years ago. We still don't have ballast water regulations, and we still don't even have a national plan on invasive species. So definitely, we need more action on this issue.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bigras now has the floor; he will be followed by Mr. Szabo and Mr. Lincoln.

[English]

    Mr. Bob Mills: Thank you.

[Translation]

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

    In your presentation, you stated among other things that there were partnerships. There are laws and programs, as well as a commitment of $1.2 million over three years, and there are programs to raise public awareness. We also know that in 1995, the Biodiversity Convention Office produced a strategy which pledged the federal government to “take all necessary steps to prevent the introduction of harmful alien organisms and to eliminate those already present...” However, it seems to me that there is quite a gap between the decisions made and the actual practice.

    Last October, if I am not mistaken, the Minister of Transport came to the Standing Committee on Environment and announced that the federal government was supporting the principle of the United States Corps of Engineers project to broaden and deepen the St. Lawrence Seaway so that ships of more than 1,000 feet could go up the St. Lawrence Seaway from the Atlantic ocean. Currently, only vessels of 736 feet in length or less can use the seaway to get to the Great Lakes and certain American states. Between the principles set out by the government and the support in principle given to this project, there is quite a gap.

    Do you believe that the effect of this project would be to worsen the invasive species phenomenon, not only in the Great Lakes but also in the St. Lawrence Seaway and the St. Lawrence River? Will this American army project have a damaging effect on Canadian ecosystems?

[English]

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: The expansion of the Great Lakes seaway is of enormous concern to the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. We are very concerned that we are looking at expanding shipping within the Great Lakes when we haven't even dealt with the issues of ballast water significantly. We're already, with this initiative, promoting greater shipping traffic into the Great Lakes. It seems to be quite a paradox.

    Mr. Greg Farrant: I think it's very contradictory to where we're headed. All the recommendations that have been made by the fisheries and oceans committee, that have been made by us, the IJC, the GLFC, Great Lakes United--a number of groups that are involved in this issue both in the Great Lakes and the seaway--would be more supportive of things going the other way. Until we develop the ballast water regulations that are necessary, perhaps we should be looking at stopping shipping at certain points and offloading to lake shippers or something like that, rather than looking inversely at widening the seaway, providing an opportunity for larger ships with greater ballast discharge opportunities into the Great Lakes. It seems to fly in the face of all logic and all the recommendations that have been made to date by an enormous number of NGOs and government committees.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: As we know, a few weeks after the former Minister of Transport gave his support in principle to this project, $500,000 were authorized by cabinet to fund feasibility studies.

    As president of the organization, do you believe that Canada and the new Minister of Transport should withdraw the support in principle that had been granted to the project and curtail its funding?

º  (1605)  

[English]

    Mr. Greg Farrant: I'll speak to that question as the government relations person, and leave Francine, the biologist, out of it.

    In my view, and in the view of the OFAH, I think it would be legitimate to suggest that this is putting the cart before the horse. Until we have the measures in place, the regulatory regime to deal with the issue of ballast water discharge, what that means and what it has meant for our Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway to date, I don't think we should be moving in that direction in any way, shape, or form, because we do not have the methodology or the regulatory powers in place to deal with potentially larger discharge issues of the future. Until we do so, I'm not sure why we would want to go down that road.

    The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Bigras.

    Mr. Szabo, followed by Mr. Lincoln.

    Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I want to thank the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters for coming. I'm familiar with their work and I know of the concerns within the tourist industry. I think everybody thought it had to do simply with SARS, but this has been going on a lot longer than SARS. I know this area you've raised with us today also has significant impact on the attractiveness of our tourist sites.

    I wanted to ask you about strategy in terms of addressing species. We had representation from both the IJC and from the national round table on the environment about the alien invasive species. One of the things I do recall was that for every one species we addressed and made progress in, for instance the zebra mussel, another one would be introduced, so the number of species continued to remain relatively static; they were just turning over. In terms of strategy, that seems to be failing, because you make no net progress.

    So in terms of a strategic direction, it sounds to me like whatever we're doing--and you can maybe give your opinion--we're not contributing enough resources to address the problem to get the net problem to go down.

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: I would wholeheartedly agree with that. I think the rate of introductions into the Great Lakes is two per year. So definitely the rate of introduction we're facing is very serious and is continuing over many years.

    Do I think we're spending enough resources to deal with the issue? No, we're definitely not spending the amount of money we need to in order to deal with this issue effectively. I don't think we're looking at it in the right perspective. I think we look at the cost of prevention, but we don't look at what the cost would be if we don't stop these species from being introduced into the Great Lakes basin, and to Canada on the whole.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I was interested when you were describing what alien invasive species are, and you gave some of the characteristics of lacking natural predators, highly adaptable, multiply prolifically, etc. The first thing I thought of was builders and developers. We actually do have another threat to our protected species, and that basically is the development that we have right across Canada.

    I'm familiar with one in my own area, where the eastern milk snake and the Jefferson salamander are being jeopardized because the buffer zone around a large wood lot is being encroached upon by development.

    There are many attacks on the species. You said, I think, that 31% of species are at risk. Was that aquatic?

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: That's all species, all species that are in COSEWIC.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: This is my final question. I think this is really important.

    You have laid out a number of examples and you've painted a bit of a picture. How would you characterize the significance or severity of this problem in terms of its economic and social impact? Where are we are on the scale? How important is this in terms of a priority that governments should be placing on it? Where is the priority now, as you see it?

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: Well, invasive species are second only to habitat destruction as a leading cause of biodiversity decline. Invasive species can have an enormous effect on the recreational and social-economic activity of a country, but in addition, the “economics” is incredible.

    If we look at the introduction of just the emerald ash borer and the Asian longhorned beetle, these forest pests can affect our $1.2 billion hardwood forests. We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of industry that could be destroyed by an invasive species introduction, which could have been prevented had we had the necessary measures in place.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: My understanding right now, and this is hearsay more than specific technical knowledge, is that of every 100 wooden pallets that come into this country, which is one of the vectors through which the beetles are introduced, CFIA is able to inspect one--that's one in every 100. I mean, that's a pretty poor record. It's certainly not a screening process that gives one a great deal of confidence in being able to stop that particular invader.

    The issue is not only about money. It always comes down to people coming to government and saying they want more money. Look, there are some pretty simple solutions here that have not been done in this country.

    Number one, the OFAH, for the last three years, has been proposing a national public education and awareness program that we would undertake to coordinate through our provincial affiliates across the country. Yes, it costs a little bit of money, but in terms of the overall problem, it's about $1.4 million for a national program, which to me is pretty reasonable.

    We haven't had a response by either Environment Canada or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for three years. We hear they're looking at it. We've heard they've talked about it. We've never had a formal response from anybody on whether or not it makes sense or it doesn't make sense. Yet here they are trying to develop a national program that involves public education and awareness. Well, that's what we've been saying for three years.

    It's also a case of the fact that we don't have the lead agencies. We don't have simple things. In the U.S., Congress is on its third version now of a national aquatic invasive species act. We haven't had one. Why not? I don't understand. With all due respect, it's not rocket science to develop a piece of legislation that says you're the lead on this, you guys are also involved, so you follow in; this legislation gives you the regulatory authority to deal with this, this, and this, so let's move on. But we don't do that.

    We've muddled around for 12, 14, 16 years, while we continue to see more and more of these invaders enter our forests, lakes, wetlands, and what not. We continue to muddle. Only now are we coming to a draft plan of one particular segment of that. It's taking far too long to move forward on these issues.

    In the meantime, here we are talking about spending more money to widen the seaway, which could possibly introduce tons more of these invaders to our shores. We don't have any regulatory agency or regulatory standards to deal with them if they do.

    At the same time, you have Environment Canada. Last week they introduced a ban, or the intention to ban certain sizes and types of lead fishing tackle, sinkers, and jigs because twenty loons a year might possibly ingest them.

    If you took a look at the thousands upon thousands of shore birds and waterfowl that are washing up on the shores of Lake Erie, dying of type E botulism, I'd be a lot more concerned about that and its relationship to invasive species--which scientists seem to feel there's a link to--than, with all due respect, a few lead sinkers and jigs. Now, that's not to say it's not important--it is--but is that a priority?

º  (1610)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Lincoln.

    Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm very glad you invited our colleagues from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters to come here, because I think if any question needs to be highlighted, it's very much that one. I was asked by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation of NAFTA to give a talk on invasive species last year. I didn't know much about it, so I started to do some research. I found out there were books going back to 1958 by Dr. Charles Elton on invasive species that talked about the terrific dislocations of nature to come. Then you get scientists like Andrew Hamilton, who reckon that this is the biggest threat to biodiversity of all. This is massive.

    There have been so many warnings internationally on the biodiversity convention that 20% of the species are going to disappear or are disappearing right now. The UN has started this global invasive species program funded by the GEF and others. We have the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, the IUCN guidelines, and locally we have the IJC report, the commissioner's report, the fisheries and oceans report. Nothing seems to change.

    I was going to ask you about the points you brought up, comparing us to the Americans as you did. In the United States, President Clinton started a national invasive species council in 1999, and they started management plans on a comprehensive and coordinated basis. Then there are the three acts you referred to. I was reading in the IJC report...I think it was the port of Antwerp that started these green awards for shipping, so that ships coming in with clean ballasts were given an award and preference in berthing so they could come in and out much faster than other ships, to try to give incentives for good shipping.

    The IJC pointed out that one huge flaw is that somehow the shipping companies have escaped total liability for the ballast they bring. They bring zebra mussels and all kinds of things, all over the world, in Europe, anywhere, but somehow they've escaped any liability. They say that unless we start a worldwide movement as well as create domestic legislation to punish shipping companies that produce dirty ballast, it will just go on. Somehow the guilty party is totally immune.

    I was wondering how you see us coordinating our action, which department should take the lead, because as you say, everybody is in there and nobody is in there. Who do you see? Should we start the counterpart of a national invasive species council? Should we give it to one ministry to coordinate and be responsible for it?

    Who, in your view, should be the coordinator and the people in charge? Should it be Transport Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, Environment? How do we do it most effectively?

º  (1615)  

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: It's difficult to say who should be the lead--apparently everyone's been fighting over who should be the lead--

    Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Yes, but in your dispassionate view.

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: I think I would place Environment Canada as the lead because they are responsible for environmental threats and they can undertake restoration programs. By the same token, there are aquatic invasive species and terrestrial species, so we need some sort of follow-through with that. We need the involvement of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, perhaps, to take the lead on aquatic issues.

    Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Do you think if we had some kind of national invasive species council, similar to that of the United States, to first of all coordinate policies, which would then be carried out by these ministries, it would be a big step forward, plus some specific legislation to back it up?

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: Yes, there is a lot to learn from what the U.S. has done with its National Aquatic Invasive Species Act. A lot of time and effort has gone into the development of that legislation in the U.S., and I think we really should be looking to model what we do in Canada and to learn from what the Americans have already undertaken.

    Mr. Greg Farrant: By doing it through this new national body that you are proposing or suggesting, it depoliticizes it and also perhaps puts in charge of the issue not one specific department but a coordinating body so that perhaps some of the disputes we've seen between departments about who's responsible can be resolved by this neutral body, if you will. It doesn't have a direct stake in whether or not they have a budget here or a budget there or how much of the budget of each department is coming out of it; rather, it is a neutral arbitrator that looks at the issue and who is best to resolve that issue. So yes, I think it makes a great deal of sense.

º  (1620)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

    On the second round, Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Bob Mills: I wonder when we talk about this how much we could do to really stop invasive species. The only comparison of something that I know works is keeping rats out of Alberta. We have a rat patrol, and literally if someone reports a rat, my goodness, ten people inundate the area and totally destroy everything in sight that might have a rat. It works. We don't have any rats there.

    I am a refugee from Saskatchewan, and I know there were lots of rats there, and I know the problems they cause and the economic loss as they chew through grain bins. In places like India rats destroy half the crop. I know it works there, but we never had any rats, so that's why I guess it works.

    Now that we have these things, how many more new ones are we getting? Can we stop them? Is it realistic to think we can?

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: It is very realistic to think that we can stop the invasion of a species. For example, in Australia they have an excellent program to deal with invasive species. I think it has been very effective at stopping new species from being introduced to that country. They have been very forward and very aggressive with their legislation and action.

    As well, prevention is key to dealing with these species. That's why OFAH has undertaken the public education and awareness component in Ontario. We want to stop these invasions that are occurring in the Great Lakes from spreading into our inland lakes, which are much more vulnerable to the effects of invasions.

    We have seen with public education and awareness where significant dollars have been invested in these programs, as perhaps, for example, in the state of Minnesota, where they spend millions of dollars on education programs to stop the spread of zebra mussels and Eurasian water milfoil into its inland waters. They have found it has reduced the rate of introduction significantly since they implemented these awareness programs. They have really affected public perceptions and behaviour.

    So if the money is there and the will, we can definitely stop these introductions.

    Mr. Bob Mills: I hear what you're saying. You're implying basically that a lot of people don't know about these species, so education then becomes number one. That's actually what the fisheries committee proposed as well, that you in fact be funded and that this happen.

    I think probably the message I'm hearing from you is that certainly from the start we need to get on this job.

    I thank you for appearing.

    Mr. Greg Farrant: Perhaps I could add that the sea lamprey program run by the GLFC has been an enormously successful program. It has made huge strides. Despite the success of that program, however, Canada is not living up to its agreement. It is an international agreement between Canada and the United States to pay proportionately for the funding of that program, and Canada has consistently fallen behind in its obligations in that regard. I know this has been raised by colleagues of yours in the House and in other places.

    When you have a program that has the success that it's demonstrated, why not live up to the obligations under international treaty and fund it to the level it is supposed to be funded, make it a line item so that it ensures that they can continue their work?

    Mr. Bob Mills: Now you've baited me, you see, about these international agreements. As the chairman certainly knows, with the Sumas and the Fraser Valley we signed three international agreements, including NAFTA, which includes a clause that the two governments will work together, and you only have to have an environmental impact study. However, neither government has bothered to live up to those agreements. They sign these things, but then nothing happens.

    It became totally frustrating--two years of talking to these guys. Why didn't you have an investigation? Why didn't you ask the questions? The National Energy Board is giving approval for a project before they've done any of the environmental stuff. They've really put the cart before the horse. So I understand your frustration with these international agreements. We sign them, no problem, but then we absolutely ignore them after that.

    That's my round. I thank you, Mr. Chair.

º  (1625)  

    The Chair: I hope you're feeling a little bit relieved.

    Mr. Bob Mills: Yes, I feel a little better now.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Bigras, do you have a question?

    Ms. Marleau.

[English]

    Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): I'm new to this committee, so you'll understand he doesn't always remember my name.

    I've been sitting here listening, and I was aware of the sea lamprey program. I was one of those who pushed to have funding increased, because it's too easy to stop funding things. People just don't know the damage that's occurring. Some may hear of it and some may not. So yes, educating people might be a good thing.

    Has anybody ever thought of having a project whereby you'd look ahead to 25 years from now and say “If you do nothing, what will happen?” A lot of lay people hear of these things and look at them and say “Oh yes, isn't that too bad.” Then they go on to the business of the day. So is there some way to have a model that will show what will happen if we don't deal with these things? We might get a lot more attention, and we might be able to get more money and more legislation.

    You say the Americans have introduced legislation. That's great, but has anything happened? Sometimes you introduce legislation, but if the regulations don't work.... It all looks good, but nothing happens. So I'm wondering whether you have seen any direct benefit from some of the legislation that's been passed.

    On my other question, what about the federal-provincial relations we always run into? You say you should have a strong whatever at the federal level to deal with these things, but what about provincial responsibilities?

    Mr. Greg Farrant: I can speak directly about Ontario, for instance. The Ontario government came to our conference just about a year ago this week, and then Premier Eves came with $600,000--$200,000 annually in matching funds for the OFAH invasive species program. We haven't seen one dollar from the federal government in matching funds. Thus far, the OFAH has been matching the $200,000 per year. By the end of the first year we had matched the provincial government's contribution. Obviously that's a bit difficult for a non-profit charitable organization, but if that's what it takes to continue the flow of that funding, that's what we'll do.

    The province has stepped up and has been involved in the development of the initial national framework that will be unveiled on Thursday this week in Montreal. The Ministry of Natural Resources of Ontario, in particular, is the lead for that. Have other provincial agencies been involved? I don't know. Francine can probably speak to that; I can just speak on Ontario alone.

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: Certainly all of the provinces have participated in the development of a national plan. That's my understanding. We really only have a viewpoint of this from the outside. We haven't been involved in the internal development of the national plan. But I do know that all of the provinces have been invited to participate.

    Hon. Diane Marleau: Nobody has addressed the idea of having some kind of model that will show what this will look like 25 years from now if we do nothing. Or maybe we shouldn't be doing anything. Has anybody thought of looking at this in the long term? In nature, even without us introducing species in different areas, there are ongoing changes.

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: I think we definitely need to provide to the public the scale of this issue. One of the quotes that I had in my presentation was that extinctions are occurring in freshwater systems at the rate of 4% per decade. That is greater than tropical rain forests.

    I don't think the public is getting the message that this is a threat of enormous scale that we have never faced before. It's something that we do have to get across in order to get the public support, in order to see the development of legislation, the actual enforcement of it, and the commitment of the dollars that we need to initiate it from here.

º  (1630)  

    Hon. Diane Marleau: You go back to the treating of the ballast. You always go back to that, because it's a major issue. Am I right?

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: Yes.

    Hon. Diane Marleau: Mr. Mills seems to think that it would be very costly to treat all this ballast.

    Mr. Bob Mills: I don't know how costly it is.

    The Chair: Madam Marleau is basically asking a question as to what would be the cost of inaction in the long term.

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: I don't know what the cost will be, but the cost will be that we lose species.

    Hon. Diane Marleau: We need to have something to sell this to people if it's costly. Is it worth while?

    I'm sure it's worth while. It's fine for me to go and tell someone that it's worth while, and I'll do it. But how do we get the general population to back us in taking on a massive campaign, which is really what we need?

    Mr. Greg Farrant: I understand where you're coming from on this. Unfortunately, spiny water fleas or zebra mussels or emerald ash borers, or whatever it happens to be, are not--and I use this word advisedly--very sexy.

    When you talk about destruction of the rain forests and the monarch butterfly, for instance, everybody understands that. For the destruction of habitat for hundreds of species of animals, you can name all the animals. People can understand that.

    When you talk about spiny water fleas, which are microscopic, or round gobies, rock bass, and stuff, it's not really a hot topic. It's how to sell that.

    Hon. Diane Marleau: Do you mind if I say something?

    For instance, Eurasian milfoil, if you live on the lake and the lake is invaded with that, then you know what you're talking about.

    Mr. Greg Farrant: Yes. It's the same as cabomba, for instance, which is an aquarium plant that we saw dumped in a lake not too far from Peterborough, where our head office is. That entire lake has now been consumed by this aquarium plant, because somebody threw one sample in it. Now it's destroying the fisheries in that lake. It's a massive problem. How do you get people to really catch it?

    The Asian carp, for instance, has been something that has caught the public's attention. The devil fish has caught the public's attention because these are creatures where we have not seen behaviour like that before--fish that size that can do that kind of thing, leap over boats, grow to the size of small Volkswagens, etc. If you've seen the videos of these fish, they are quite impressive when you see them leaping over boaters going across the lake, or you see the Asian devil fish walking on land and surviving in the mud for six months. It grabs the public's attention.

    I hate to be disingenuous about it, but maybe you have to use them as examples to get people interested. When you talk about electric barriers and leaping fish, people will pay attention a lot more than they will when you talk about round gobies, spiny water flea, milfoil, or whatever. Maybe we have to do a better job of using those more visible predators and invasives to make the case for all of them. I don't know.

    The Chair: Thank you, Madam Marleau.

    We have Mr. Szabo, Mr. Lincoln, then the chair.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Let's pursue this a little further. It would appear that those who are involved in the outdoors and those who are environmentally sensitive, like my daughter, who just finished her master's in marine and freshwater biology, probably would be sensitized by some of the specific species, etc. But it seems to me that the decision-makers are not reflected in that group of people.

    The decision-makers are people who have competing interests for the money, and somehow I believe the case has to be made that this problem you're identifying is worthy to share some of the resources available that are going elsewhere. How do we get the general public—the person in downtown Calgary or Ottawa or Toronto, the bankers, and these kinds of people—to understand the economic devastation that may be caused if we do not address this problem?

    The case has to made in terms that urban people—downtowners, bankers, and lawyers—understand. These are the people you need onside as well. If it's a matter of education, maybe the education has to start with those who don't have a clue and who you wouldn't expect to have a clue because it's not their profession, not their exposure.

    The question really still comes down to how serious this is compared with the other problems Canadians are facing. How competitive is this issue with respect to its right to some of the limited resources, whether compared with health care—and I know that with almost everything we touch environmentally that gets linked with health care, its priority among budget items seems to go up.... It is because of that linkage with health, I think, that Mrs. Marleau asked you about whether anybody has envisioned what it would be like 25 years from now if we just stopped talking about this and let happen what happens.

    What does it look like? Do we see tumbleweeds where we used to see beautiful fields? Do we see dried-up lakes? Do we see no birds? Do we see no insects? What does it look like if you were to envision it? You don't have to computer model it; I think you know the direction it's going in. It's just a matter of whether it is a gradual thing that will take thousands of years or something such that in 25 years you would know a difference and you'd feel really bad about it if it happened and you hadn't done anything about it. That's the issue.

º  (1635)  

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: Probably the reason why I'm involved with this issue is because I'm very concerned about the introduction of unauthorized fish to our lakes. I like to fish for lake trout, and I think that in 20 years, if someone introduces rock bass or another fish species to that lake, I won't be able to fish for lake trout any more, because they may not be there or they won't be there in the numbers they are now.

    That's what hits home to me, that the opportunity for that thing I value won't be there. I think what we need to impress upon people is that they will lose what they value in the environment if they don't deal with this issue now.

    In terms of economics, not very much work has been done in Canada to give the actual numbers of what impacts invasive species have in Canada. But in the U.S. a little work has been done looking at the environmental and economic costs of invasive species. It's been in the multi-billions of dollars per year. I can't remember the number, but I think about $9 billion a year is the figure they've used.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chair, those are all my questions. But I was a little concerned about the statement that the anglers and hunters have not been able to get a response—or I guess the environmental community has not been able to get a response—from Environment Canada on questions I believe important.

    I'm not sure what the practice is of the committee, but I think that to the extent things like that are brought to our attention, it would be appropriate for our committee to raise the matter with the minister in a letter or something like that, just to indicate that the concern was raised and we wanted to pass it on for appropriate attention.

    The Chair: Or it would make an excellent question in question period tomorrow for anyone who wishes to raise it and give it some visibility.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Lincoln, please.

    Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I can understand exactly what Ms. MacDonald is saying about what motivates her, which is what motivates me personally: it's the loss of biodiversity, the changing of changing nature.

    At the same time, I understand what Mrs. Marleau and Mr. Szabo are saying, that unfortunately, to grab the public's attention you have to bring it down to brass tacks and dollars and cents loss or health care problems.

    What I really find saddening in this whole issue is that a lot of information is available—huge amounts. I saw that, in 1988, the United States had already put a tag of U.S. $5 billion on the damage from the zebra mussels alone, let alone sea lamprey or anything else—five billion U.S. dollars. All these figures are available. The legislative models are available. The United Nations global program on invasive species has a huge amount of information available. It has been working on it for years now. It's a technical and scientific committee. Here, we have the commissioner's report, we have the fisheries report, we have the IJC report.

    Unless we coordinate this in one body that is going to say “we have to carry out public education, prevention, going after the shipping companies for liability and ballast cleaning on a concentrated, coordinated, comprehensive basis”, we'll be spinning wheels. I hope that somehow, Mr. Chair, we arrive at some sort of recommendation to look at what is done.

    We don't have to go very far. I think the United States have done a huge amount of work in this area. Maybe you could take your committee to look at what the national advisory council on invasive species has been doing in recommending legislation, or what Congress has done, and maybe copy what they've done. They've done a huge amount of work on the economic side concerning certain invasive species.

    And on trying to do something to control shipping, for instance, they are far more aggressive, with the coast guard, in clearing dirty ballast on the high seas than we are. We never catch anybody. We let everybody go on with impunity through the canals and seaway and don't do anything about it.

    I think this is very timely. If you could perhaps take the committee to see what our neighbours do, it would be a big start to highlighting what is a huge problem. As I was saying, I've seen a scientific study by the CEC that says this is the biggest biodiversity threat to the world at large within 25 years. It's multiplying at a rate where nobody can control it any more, not only here, but in Europe—all over the place. The Danube fishery has been totally devastated by invasive species coming in from Russia through the rivers and canals, and it goes on and on. Look at the reports, whether about Asia, Mexico, or anywhere; it's devastating. I think Mr. Farrant is right. It's not a sexy issue, so everybody forgets about it—it's not a big deal—until it's too late.

    Maybe we could, for a start, just go to see what the Americans are doing, because they have done a heck of a lot more than we have, for sure.

º  (1640)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.

    To conclude, I will attempt to summarize the issue and see what kind of action we can take collectively. But before doing so, I would like to ask a couple of questions. One has to do with the role of the Ontario federation.

    Under the title “Outreach Activities: Working with Boaters”, the first item of the sign you have issued or are displaying under the heading “Stop The Invasion” reads: “Inspect your boat, trailer and equipment. Remove visible plants or animals.” What do you expect the boater to do after having removed the plant or the animal? Is it to be incinerated? Is it to be thrown back into the water? Is it to be buried? Why does it say just “remove”?

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: We ask people to do this after they leave the boat launch where they've come from. They collect aquatic plants and things like that on their trailer and propeller. They basically just remove them at that point so they're not spreading them to a new lake. But the plants have already come from that water body, so there isn't--

    The Chair: Excuse me. I should put it this way. Do you think that the verb “remove” is sufficient to achieve the goal you have in mind?

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: It's not just removing plants. You have to clean your boat as well. You use a high-pressure water spray to remove any microscopic organisms, or use hot water to remove any organisms as well.

    The Chair: Suppose there is a lamprey or a zebra mussel attached to the boat. Why only remove? Is that adequate?

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: Yes, it's absolutely adequate, because you're removing those organisms from the water body where they've come from and you're preventing them from getting into a new water body. You're preventing them from being spread to a new--

º  (1645)  

    The Chair: So you just put them on the ground and leave them there.

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: Yes, that will kill them.

    The Chair: And that is adequate.

    The other question has to do with the rock bass. In an earlier slide of yours, on the threat to Canada's waters, are you sure that the 30% decline in lake trout growth is not due to overfishing? How did you arrive at that percentage?

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: That percentage came from a study done by a scientist at our office, Dave Brown, and Dr. John Casselman.

    The Chair: A scientist with whom?

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: He is with the federation, and Dr. John Casselman is from the Ministry of Natural Resources. That study has been peer-reviewed by numerous scientists, and it is seen to be accurate.

    The Chair: The lake trout are mentioned under the heading “rock bass”. How does the rock bass relate to the lake trout growth rate in the same paragraph?

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: The reason why is because rock bass are not native to some of our central Ontario lakes. They've been introduced either through bait buckets or through people stocking them in the lake. What happens is that even though you think of lake trout as a deep-water species, at certain points in its life cycle it does spend the same habitat time within the same habitats as rock bass, and rock bass feed very heavily on some of the important food sources that lake trout would utilize for growth. That's how they affect one another.

    The Chair: So you don't approve of the rock bass, in principle?

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: No, we don't approve of rock bass introductions.

    The Chair: Because it's not native?

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: Yes.

    The Chair: It's an immigrant fish, and this country hosts a lot of immigrants. It will be a fish immigrant, which is highly valued on the market, I understand, because it sells at a high price, actually--the bass from Chile, for instance. Is it damaging?

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: Yes.

    The Chair: It is damaging the lake trout to an extent that you find is not acceptable.

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: Yes.

    Unauthorized fish introductions in northern Ontario and central Ontario are probably the greatest invasive species threat that we're facing for fisheries in those regions. Black crappy is another non-native that's caused enormous devastation to our native fish populations.

    The Chair: With the rate of maritime exchanges, the increased movement of ships and boats and the like, don't you think that we are bound to have invasive species in every part of the globe, not just in Canada?

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: Yes, it is a global problem; it's a problem for every country.

    The Chair: Right.

    Do you think it can be stopped as a phenomenon?

    Ms. Francine MacDonald: Yes, I do. I don't think its naive of me to say that either. You know, 10, 15, 20 years ago, when we were dealing with the issue of acid rain, that seemed like an impossible issue to deal with, but now we have acid-recovered lakes and we're seeing the return of native species to those lakes. That was an issue 20 years ago, and now it's becoming less of an issue because we've focused on it and dealt with it. I think that invasive species are similar, and if we focus our efforts and spend the resources needed, we can deal with the issue.

    The Chair: Well, Environment Canada tells us that the issue of acid rain is the same size it was twenty years ago.

    Anyway, I appreciate your comments and the parallel you're drawing.

    We can have a letter prepared by Tim Williams to both the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The main points that were raised today and the main recommendations will be put on paper and circulated in draft form. Then you can perhaps refine the draft in many respects. Perhaps we can then send it off to the two key ministers, so we can at least get some political input.

    Secondly, we will investigate the possibility of travelling, as suggested by Mr. Lincoln. It does not seem very promising that we will get the House leaders of the various parties to approve travel at this time of the year, but we can explore that possibility.

    Mr. Lincoln.

º  (1650)  

    Mr. Clifford Lincoln: I was wondering if in that letter you can raise a question that Mr. Szabo brought up as to why no answer has been received by them.

    The Chair: Mr. Williams has made a note of it.

    Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Okay.

    The Chair: Mr. Farrant.

    Mr. Greg Farrant: With all due respect, U.S. Representative Vernon Ehlers is the sponsor of the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act that is currently in Congress. He represents the State of Michigan. You may consider inviting the congressman to appear before this committee at some point, if travelling becomes a problem. There are also a number of other politicians, such as Senator Levin and Senator Debbie Stabenow from Michigan, who are very close neighbours.

    The Chair: It's very kind of you to suggest that. This committee has a very heavy agenda already on a number of other fronts, so I don't know whether we will go down that road. But we'll be glad to make the best possible use of the ideas and recommendations that have emerged in this meeting. They will at least move the issue ahead at the parliamentary level with the government.

    If there are no further questions or comments, I will adjourn the meeting until Wednesday.

    We appreciate very much your participation, and we thank you very much for your input.

    Mr. Greg Farrant: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. We appreciate it.

    The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.