Opening Statement to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans

Invasive Species

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I will make a brief statement and then would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.

I am joined at the table by Neil Maxwell, the principal responsible for this year's chapter and the petitions process. Also with me is John Reed, the principal responsible for the 2001 Great Lakes report and sustainable development strategies, and Andrew Ferguson, the Director responsible for the invasive species audit.

I want to speak to you today about invasive species. But Mr. Chairman, let me first introduce myself and my responsibilities.

My position was created in 1995. I am part of the Auditor General's Office and follow the same audit methodology. Like the reports of the Auditor General, my reports provide members of Parliament with independent, objective analysis and recommendations that they can use to assess the federal government's performance. I have my own report which I present to Parliament in the fall of each year.

As Commissioner, I have three main responsibilities. First, I am required to monitor and report to Parliament on how well departments have implemented their sustainable development strategies and achieved the objectives set out in those strategies. The strategies are basically action plans by departments to move Canada toward sustainable development. They are valuable tools for parliamentarians, and so you may be interested in looking at Fisheries and Oceans Canada's strategy to know the commitments it has made.

Second, I have broad authority to examine and report on environmental and sustainable development issues that I believe should be brought to Parliament's attention. So far, my Office has examined and reported on such concerns as climate change, toxic substances, and federal contaminated sites. In 2001, I reported on the state of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin. My staff examined a broad range of environmental concerns in that region, including species at risk; wetland conservation; water management; and fisheries issues-protecting fish habitat, providing scientific support for fisheries decisions, and addressing invasive aquatic species.

The third aspect of my mandate relates to the petitions process. The petitions process was put in place to help citizens get straight answers from federal ministers to important environmental questions. I encourage Canadians to use it. I also invite Committee members to use it and to encourage their constituents to use it.

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

Let me turn now to invasive species.

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

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

In signing the Convention, the Canadian government formally pledged to prevent the introduction of alien species that threaten Canada's ecosystems, habitats, and other species or to control or eradicate them.

Three years later, in 1995, the federal government published its strategy for honouring its pledge. It 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 10-year-old United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity nor the government's own Biodiversity Strategy-which is now 8 years old-had triggered any identifiable change in the government's approach to the problem.

The federal government has still not identified the invasive species that threaten Canada's ecosystems or the pathways by which they arrive. Human and financial resources have not been co-ordinated. 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.

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

All Canadians should be concerned. Experts long ago concluded that invasive species are second only to habitat destruction as a cause of biodiversity loss, including local extinctions. More recent studies indicate that invaders now threaten ecosystems right across Canada and cause billions of dollars of damage to our economy every year.

If trends continue, costs will mount. And, with the loss of biodiversity, our storehouse of biological resources will continue to be depleted.

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

Our colleagues from the International Joint Commission have been most eloquent in their description of the threat posed to the Great Lakes from alien aquatic invaders, and from ship ballast in particular. But as I point out in my report, this is a national problem that affects communities from coast to coast.

Aquatic invaders not only threaten the Great Lakes but are a clear and present threat to many of our inland lakes and rivers and to the ecology and economies along Canada's coasts.

One of the invaders profiled in my report is the green crab. It is aggressively colonizing along our Atlantic coast, putting the clam, mussel, and oyster industries there at risk. To show the magnitude of what is at risk, the landed value of Atlantic clams, mussels, and oysters was about 57 million dollars in 2000. Catches of Atlantic lobster, which scientists believe may also be threatened, were worth over 500 million dollars in 2000.

On the west coast, where the green crab has also been discovered, the value of native clams and crab catches in 2000 was about $25 million. More than 200 fishing vessels and crews and thousands of crab fishermen from 33 coastal First Nations communities depend on healthy native stocks for their livelihoods. The number of recreational crabbers in British Columbia is estimated at between 10,000 and 20,000.

As part of its eight-year-old strategy to deal with alien invasive species, the government committed to developing databases to help identify and anticipate harmful alien organisms so preventive measures can be taken. Since it has created no such database, the government has no way of knowing how many examples like the green crab are out there.

However, as our colleagues have pointed out, there is ample evidence that ship ballast remains a major entryway for aquatic invaders. Once again, the government has a long-standing commitment in its Biodiversity Strategy to eliminate common sources of unintentional introductions. Aside from ongoing discussions, however, it has taken no concrete steps in Canada to deal with what many experts believe is the predominant source of aquatic invaders.

My objective today is to focus your attention on the future, not the past, on practical considerations such as

• the need to identify the invasive species that pose the greatest risks to Canada's ecosystems and economy, and how they arrive;
• the need to establish a concrete plan and the operational capacity to prevent their introduction;
• the specific need to determine science-based criteria for the safe release of ballast water into Canadian waters; and
• the need to gauge the government's progress on its invasive species commitments.

Given the threat they pose to biodiversity and the clear potential for their further introduction, alien invasive species must be targeted immediately with preventive action.

As a starting point, three things are needed for success, in my view. First, the federal government needs a concrete, adequately resourced action plan for invasive species. Co-ordinating such a plan is the responsibility of Environment Canada. But setting clear, results-based goals, allocating the necessary resources, implementing the plan, and applying existing policies and legislation are the responsibilities of various departments, including Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Transport Canada.

Second, progress toward expected results must be tracked. Third, ministers and departments must be held accountable for their performance. I believe concerted action by the government is needed and I think this Committee could help drive such action.

Mr. Chairman, we need straight answers: Who has responsibility for key issues? What action has been taken and what results have been achieved? How will Parliament and Canadians be kept informed? The departmental responses to my recommendations did not answer those questions. Most of what they pledged to do is nothing more than a restatement of the status quo. I hope that you can get answers to these questions. I'd be happy to share my thoughts on how this can be done, if you wish. And of course, I'd also be happy to answer any other questions Committee members might have about my report. Thank you.