ZEBRA MUSSELS AND PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE
FEDERATION OF ONTARIO NATURALISTS
GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF ANGLERS AND HUNTERS
CONTENTS
Thursday 31 January 1991
Zebra mussels and purple loosestrife
Federation of Ontario Naturalists
Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
Greenpeace
Great Lakes United
Adjournment
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Chair: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold NDP)
Vice-Chair: Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay NDP)
Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich NDP)
Huget, Bob (Sarnia NDP)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Klopp, Paul (Huron NDP)
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury NDP)
Offer, Steven (Mississauga North L)
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
Wood, Len (Cochrane North NDP)
Clerk pro tem: Manikel, Tannis
Staff: Luski, Lorraine, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1007 in room 228.
ZEBRA MUSSELS AND PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE
Resuming consideration of the designated matter, pursuant to standing order 123, relating to zebra mussels and purple loosestrife.
The Chair: Order, please. By way of summary, in the first two days of public hearings we have heard witnesses from the scientific and resource management communities, as well as users of Ontario's water resources.
Today, on the final day of public hearings, we will hear from a number of natural resource, conservation and environmental advocacy groups. Also appearing today will be a scientist from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. The commission has worked closely with the International Joint Commission.
FEDERATION OF ONTARIO NATURALISTS
The Chair: The first witness this morning is the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and appearing is Dr Ian Kirkham.
Dr Kirkham: First of all, I would like to begin by thanking you for giving the Federation of Ontario Naturalists the opportunity to present its views on the topic of invasive flora and fauna in Ontario.
Despite the short notice prior to the hearings, the federation has produced a written summary and a longer and more detailed report on this topic. I am just going to overview some of the concerns in that brief and the longer report, but I just wanted to draw your attention to the package that you have before you. I hope we will spend some time going through some questions you may have.
The supplement, the main body of the report is broken up into basically five different headings or chapters. First we deal with definitions. Second we deal with the area of prevention. The third category is really a philosophical overview with some discussion on management. The fourth is a description of the various categories of invaders as we see them. Finally, before the discussion, we have a rather extensive list of risks which I point out to you and draw your attention to -- it begins on page 13 --
where we provide a summary of some of the species of concern involving invasive flora and fauna throughout the world.
Many of these have impacted the natural ecosystems within Ontario and so you may have some specific questions about some of those species that we have looked at and drawn your attention to.
Invasive species have been a serious problem throughout the world for centuries. However, it has only recently received moderate attention in Ontario. The debilitative impact of purple loosestrife on our wetlands and the economic and biologic impacts of zebra mussels on our waterways has brought this issue to the forefront.
In our presentation and written briefs we have deliberately not focused extensively on loosestrife and zebra mussels, as we feel these species will likely be dealt with in adequate detail by others. Instead we have addressed numerous other invasive species and issues. We found it necessary to define first off "invasive flora and fauna" and have organized our written reports accordingly.
To begin on that note, not all organisms clearly or easily fall within the animalia or planta kingdoms, for instance, micro-organisms, but for the purposes of our submissions we include these in the category of flora and fauna.
To be an invasive species, we generally consider only those species which can sustain themselves via reproductively viable offspring.
Invasive flora and fauna are derived from many sources. Domestic wildlife that have become established as feral wildlife must be recognized as invasive. Examples of feral cats and dogs damaging native wildlife populations are numerous. These animals often have profound impact and must be controlled.
Where populations of invasive species can be controlled, they should be. This may involve international agreements; for example, the mute swans in Ontario and Michigan. To deal with that introduced species in the province of Ontario only without regard for the populations south of the border is simply inadequate as a control tactic. The real problem lies in the lack of preparation to cope with new invasives. Preventive measures should be given the highest priority since for many of the established invasive species we simply cannot mount a control or management scheme that would be sufficient to deal with the problem.
The greatest source of invasive species are those that rely on humans to ameliorate environmental factors in their favour, to remove zoogeographical barriers or to provide directly or indirectly habitat and nutrition.
In order that we succeed in controlling invasive species, our objective must be cost-effective and realistic. However, we appear to lack direction in this regard as we always seem to be reacting to problem situations rather than trying to prevent them.
Zebra mussels could possibly have been avoided or, at the very least, their invasion could have been slowed to the extent that remedial actions would have been effective. Unfortunately we must now realize that mussels and loosestrife, like lampreys and starlings and others are a permanent part of our environment. Attention must therefore be shifted towards the prevention of future invasive species into our terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
We have identified three main categories of invaders: natural, accidental and intentional. I will just overview each of these briefly.
Natural invaders: These are species that enter our ecosystems through natural means, such as range extension. However, due to human caused alterations to the landscape and climate, many of the natural barriers preventing range extension are gone.
Examples include denuding the Carolinian Canada forests, shifts in climatic zones, increased radiation, changing salinity and temperature, agriculture and urban development. For the most part, we must accept natural invaders and if they pose problems, we must learn to live with them. Examples include the potato blight and killer bees, which pose specific societal and economic threats in addition to the ecological impacts.
Accidental invaders: Examples include the ones that I am sure you have heard lots about, mussels and loosestrife. However, there may be considerable overlap with the intentional invaders category, and accidental invaders. Accidentals are difficult to control and often impossible to predict. However, enabling legislation placing tight controls on the import of alien species will be extremely effective in managing this category.
Intentional invaders: This includes a broader category that is referred to throughout our reports under introductions. Traditionally, introductions have been conducted to deliberately change natural communities, to increase availability of game species at the expense and without regard for natural wildlife. We have attempted to recreate the homeland by introducing these old-world game and fishes. As a result, we have jeopardized Ontario's natural heritage.
Thus, extreme caution is needed with regard to introductions and intentional invasions. This category poses the single greatest threat, but it is also one that can be effectively controlled provided there is sufficient political will to do so. Examples include many fishes, game species and commercial tree and plant species. The exotic pet trade needs serious attention as it provides the source for many of our current problems with accidental and intentional invaders.
As I mentioned, each category requires political will and commitment. Legislative policy and statutes must allow for the following three points: First, prevention of invasive species; second, management and control of invasive species; third, elimination of the invasive species whenever possible.
Our action must be based first on ecological damage control and prevention rather than economic damage control, as in the cases of loosestrife and mussels. When we are faced with this latter situation, it is often too late.
We cannot assume any invasive species will be benign or even beneficial. We simply cannot determine or predict the downstream costs to our economy, society or the ecology of the province. Therefore, we must focus on prevention and err on the side of caution.
For instance, we do not know whether European goldfinches imported into Ontario as exotic pets will establish themselves in the wild. If they do, will they displace the native goldfinch species? Micro-organisms and ectoparasites or spores may have devastating impacts on native flora and fauna. We will only know when it is too late to act. Hindsight informs us of the need to look closely at sources of invasions and to control as many of them as possible.
This may in part be achieved through reverse listing of species. Here only those species exceptions are listed as those permitted to enter the province. These would obviously include animals like disease-free domestic wildlife and captive-bred animals and plants. We should not permit, nor should we support, the wild animal and plant trade by allowing them to enter Ontario. These should derive from captive stock only.
I think we also must realize that we have a responsibility to other continents and ecosystems outside of the province in that we must prevent the export of our native species into areas where they are non-native. This is the reverse problem of what you are dealing with, but it is a problem for other nations. As we have seen, many mollusc species from our side of the North Atlantic introduced deliberately or accidentally into the North Sea have caused devastating impacts on the fisheries and aquatic resources in Scandinavia and the United Kingdom.
I also would like to mention that we must be very cautious of reintroductions into the province. In this category we are basically dealing with extirpated species, those that formerly bred or occurred in the province. There is the potential to spend a great deal of our human and financial resources on reintroductions, but we must be cautious and aware of the reasons for the extirpation of the species in the first place. Have those conditions changed such that the reintroduction can occur, and is it really cost-effective for the resources to be spent on reintroductions.
Those are my basic comments. I would welcome any questions.
Mr Waters: Is the Federation of Ontario Naturalists doing any public awareness things in general or just through your periodicals within your own group?
Dr Kirkham: I think the most effective means of communicating with our members and the members of our 80 federated organizations that make up the federation is through our quarterly magazine, Seasons. We have routinely run articles about invasive species and the perils of introductions and the impacts of invasive species. In the last two years, for instance, we have run two separate features on purple loosestrife and zebra mussels. We produced a paper some years ago, three years back now, about zebra mussels, and have issued statements of concern and warning about loosestrife far earlier than that to the government.
1020
In many respects, I think our efforts are spent trying to capture the attention and concern of the government to act responsibly and quickly to deal with invasives. I think now that we have serious economic impacts resulting from the zebra mussels the issue is receiving proper attention, but we remain concerned about purple loosestrife, as there seems to be very little being done currently to start up an eradication or management or control scheme within the government. Rather, the proposal at this time, as I understand it, is to further study its increase.
Mr Waters: Further to that, you talked about your adult magazines, but I seem to recall that when I was a child you had a magazine called Owl. Do you get into teaching the younger generation as they are coming on about this type of hazard?
Dr Kirkham: We do indeed. That magazine, when it was published by the federation, was called Young Naturalist. We then turned it over to Key publications and they have continued it as Owl magazine, so the connection was correct. We do have a youth education program and we produce education supplements to our magazine each issue. They cover a host of issues and introductions in wildlife care and captive wildlife and the ecosystem approach. These are all subjects regularly covered in those supplements.
Mr Waters: Do you have any suggestions, because you are doing this within your magazines, for us as a committee about education with the public?
Dr Kirkham: Very much so. I think one recent example that we were faced with was that after running the article on purple loosestrife in the magazine, one of our members phoned up and said that she had rushed out to her local nursery to buy it because she feared that the species would be eradicated by the province and therefore wanted to get some before it was gone. Clearly we had to go into some greater explanation of the issue with this member and refer back to the feature article on the matter, but I think that illustrates an area of concern and need within public education.
The nursery owners and the general public see species such as loosestrife as pretty and an aesthetically pleasing species to have in their backyards. We must also inform them of the insidious consequences of these noxious invasive species. A full-fledged campaign discouraging people from purchasing wild-caught alien species through the pet trade and discouraging people from planting non-indigenous species in their backyards or in reforesting their properties, their pasture lands, is an area that I think need immediate attention within education.
Mr Ramsay: I would like to address somewhat your cautions about government sanctioned introductions and reintroductions of species. It seems to me, obviously, mankind's view of the environment has changed quite radically in the last couple of years and in the last few decades. If the committee would be indulgent with me, it seems to me that maybe until the beginning of the century we had a view of nature as maybe that of a sandbox that basically we could totally remodel to our own liking, as a child does in a sandbox.
Maybe even today we still look upon it as sort of a Tinkertoy, that you do not make some radical changes, but still you can tinker with it and make some changes. I am wondering, with the involuntary, obviously, invasion of some of these species, if we need to be taking a harder look at what mankind does voluntarily to the ecosystem. I notice you do not come outright and say we should be stopping this, but you give us some severe cautions here. Do you see the day when maybe we should absolutely just be stopping this sort of tinkering.
Dr Kirkham: Absolutely. We do get into that point during the discussion in the latter part of the supplement we gave you. We simply have to recognize that we have a responsibility to preserve the integrity of Ontario's natural heritage. We are so adept and able to perturb and change the natural world that we have to rapidly change the way we approach our natural heritage. I think you are quite right. We have tinkered far too long, but we are dealing with a mindset here, that it is our God-given right to do just that.
I think, if anything, it is our responsibility to preserve biodiversity as it occurs and the integrity of the ecological communities. When we add species, we for ever change the dynamics of ecological communities. We have not given that much thought when we have done it. There are many examples of introductions that continue today: commercial species, game species, fishes. I think we need to take a hard look at exactly what we are doing and try to assess the downstream costs of those actions.
In many respects, the benefits from those introductions are realized in the short term. What we do not realize for the long term are the detriments to the community. Perhaps that has been a problem within a political system. Those long-term downstream costs are so far away and out of sight that we can avoid discussing or recognizing them.
Mr Ramsay: Let me take the counter argument a little bit just to challenge that. How far would we take this? Sometimes the biodiversity has been affected by incursions of mankind, such as the acidification of lakes. The attempt has been made to try to bring the acid level to more normal levels and maybe to reintroduce a fish species that had been there naturally. I think up to this point the majority of the public agrees with that, that somehow it was man that caused this. Maybe it was not a natural phenomenon. What would you think about that, when we tried to correct an error that mankind had made?
Dr Kirkham: I think you are dealing with a very difficult issue, because often the costs are enormous for rehabilitating ecological communities. For instance, to put into place a remedial action plan for a wetland or to recreate a wetland that has been drained is far, far more expensive than setting policy, regulations, laws and education programs in place to prevent the further deterioration of those habitats. I think there are many cases where we ought to rehabilitate habitats where we have had a devastating effect, but we must recognize that in doing so, are we jeopardizing other programs to prevent the problem from continuing?
The Chair: We have exceeded our time. I will allow one final question.
Mr Arnott: Dr Kirkham, you stated early in your presentation that had the government of Ontario responded sooner to the zebra mussel threat, perhaps it would have been abated somewhat. It has been stated, I think, that it is political pressure that brought the issue to the attention of the minister and made him respond quickly. Why in your opinion did the ministry not respond more quickly?
1030
Dr Kirkham: I do not think I am in a position to be able to answer that. I might indulge in conjecture that there were pressures essentially to avoid the sterilization of ballast water, because that is costly. The shipping and oil industries would require significant changes to the structure, to the engineering of their vessels and there would have to be strict compliance before these vessels entered the Seaway. There may be, I suspect, many pressures that I am simply not aware of that prevented that from occurring.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr Kirkham, for a very informative presentation and for taking the time to deal with this this morning.
GREAT LAKES FISHERY COMMISSION
The Chair: Our next witness is Margaret Dochoda from the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.
Mrs Dochoda: Just a word about the commission to set a context for our interest in this matter: Our commission was created by Canada and the United States in 1955 in response to the invading sea lamprey. Most people know us for our sea lamprey control program. However, our first duty under the convention is to advise the governments of Canada and the United States on issues affecting fish stocks of common concern. The sea lamprey perhaps sensitized us to the problem of exotics, but our first duty is advisory.
The biological invasion of the Great Lakes ecosystem is a serious matter. It is one of the three major stresses: overharvest, pollution and exotic invasion. It is not an obvious thing when it occurs. It is often several years before we know it has happened, before a new organism is detected. If an exotic species becomes established, it is almost always permanent in a large, open system such as the Great Lakes. Often it will spread beyond the Great Lakes, as we will find with the spiny water flea and the zebra mussel. It is costly in many ways, affecting our uses of the Great Lakes, affecting the aquatic community itself in many subtle ways.
The zebra mussel, as Dr Stanley probably told you the other day, is going to cost society several hundred million dollars a year over the next 10 years for the Great Lakes alone. The sea lamprey, which is one of the few exotics whose numbers we can control, costs the United States and Canada approximately $10 million, in today's dollars, a year to control. It is a cost that will be ongoing.
We believe that with exotic species, given that you cannot put the genie back in the bottle, certainly an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. As Joe Leach probably told you the other day, ships right now are the largest single vector for exotic species. Typically they discharge up to one million gallons of ballast water. To put that in context, a typical swimming pool maybe has 30,000 gallons. Studies have shown upwards of 200 exotic species in this kind of water that is discharged.
We have a concern, not only for discharges into the Great Lakes Seaway which begins this side of Montreal with the first locks, but we are also concerned with discharges into connected waters. The reason for our first recommendation to you is that Canada and the United States should be encouraged to require ocean-going vessels entering the lower St Lawrence River and the Hudson River to exchange or treat their ballast water. Right now the Canadian guidelines and the new US legislation just ask ballast exchange or treatment of ships coming into the Seaway. That means ships calling at Montreal and Quebec City are not now asked to exchange or treat their ballast.
On the last page, page 8, I traced out a little map from my road atlas. It shows you that the five connections of the Great Lakes to other drainage systems are Lake Nipigon to Hudson Bay, the Chicago diversion to the Mississippi, a canal which connects us to the Susquehanna River to Chesapeake Bay, and the Erie Canal to the Hudson River, and of course the outlet, which is the St Lawrence River.
Of those five inlets, the Hudson has been the invasion route for alewife, white perch, sea lamprey and several plants, primarily through ships' ballasts or cargo, railroads and natural range extension. The St Lawrence, of course, was a source of many of the species such as Atlantic salmon and eels in the Great Lakes originally, and historically we have had a plant and range extension of four-spine stickleback probably by lake vessel ballast water. Of the others, only the Susquehanna has contributed a species and we do not think the others are that much of a threat. Exotics are being discharged into these waters and we believe the back door to the Great Lakes is still open.
Our second recommendation, and I understand the Canadian Coast Guard addressed this the other day, is that Canada and the United States should be encouraged to require all ships to exchange or treat as a prerequisite for the privilege of discharging ballast water from oceangoing vessels into the Great Lakes, the St Lawrence River and the Hudson River. We think it is a question of equity. To allow a single ship to discharge its ballast puts at jeopardy other uses of the Great Lakes. One ship is quite capable of effecting an introduction. That is probably all it took for most of them.
We understand the Canadian Coast Guard has come across a few bad apples among the shippers. Most shippers have been co-operative, but there are some who will not be persuaded by anything other than a penalty of enforcement. In order to bring these around, the Coast Guard needs the resources -- on both sides, really -- for adequate monitoring and enforcement. It is just like when we are on the highways. If we do not think we are going to get caught, we are not likely to obey the speed limits.
Another thing that is needed in order for regulations to come into effect, particularly in Canada, are our information needs on effectiveness, which is being studied somewhat, and also, the most important need right now is for research to develop alternatives to ballast exchange. There are situations where it may not be safe. I understand it is fairly rare, but sometimes it is not safe to exchange a ballast and they need to have alternatives available. This could be portable or onshore treatment units. Many different kinds are available, everything from hatcheries using ultraviolet light and ozone to pasteurization, whatever.
Our next concern is that it is easy to become very fixated on the shipping problem, There are other vectors, and some are just coming into their own. Private aquaculture is a big concern right now among fishery managers. We are asking or hoping, on the basis of fish management agencies' recommendations, that policies will be reviewed in the near future to determine their effectiveness in stopping intentional or incidental importation of exotic organisms and diseases.
1040
Some of the areas that have been a concern to fish managers recently have been the apparent introduction of the rudd by bait fisheries, importation from the disease-endemic west coast areas. There are a couple of fish diseases out there we do not have in the Great Lakes and frankly we are better off without; they are very difficult to manage. Another would be a risk of escaping striped bass and grass carp from private aquaculture.
In responding to invading species, I would like to encourage you to continue your support for long-term aquatic community databases and research on basic biology. Such information has proven an essential foundation for understanding and mitigating damage inflicted by exotic organisms. For example, the Ministry of Natural Resources Lake Erie plankton survey has documented seasonal density of zebra mussel larvae, which is important information for managing around the species. The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans has a bio-index program on Lake Ontario which is allowing fishery biologists to have some insight into the impact of the exotic spiny water flea on the food web, and it makes it possible for early warning.
Another early warning has come from long-term databases and from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in Duluth, Minnesota, in which their trawl surveys have shown that the exotic ruffe has moved since 1989 from seventh most abundant species in the Duluth harbour to second in 1990. When this particular species gets through the cold water of Lake Superior to areas like Lake St Clair and western Lake Erie, it will be of great concern to fish managers since it competes for food with young yellow perch.
We believe that where possible potentially harmful exotic organisms already established in the Great Lakes should be contained. It is not always possible. Usually all you can do is slow them. That is why our emphasis is on prevention. However, with the ruffe, the species I just mentioned, we have sought and obtained the co-operation of Canadian lake vessels in not taking on ballast in Duluth harbour during the times when the juvenile ruffe are present. We hope by that measure to slow down its spread throughout the Great Lakes. We are also making a similar request of US lake vessels.
In order to prevent the spread of the ruffe inland -- we think the ruffe and zebra mussel are the two you have a shot at slowing -- fish managers will want to consider measures being implemented in Minnesota and Wisconsin. For example, prohibiting possession of ruffe by anglers -- you just cannot have them; even if they are dead, you just cannot have them -- and perhaps prohibiting the use of any members of the perch family as bait, since troutperch, yellow perch and ruffe appear similar when they are small.
Those wishing to slow the spread of zebra mussels inland might wish to consider the possibility of spreading them in water from the Great Lakes, for example in bait buckets. An area that is really a concern to us is the pet and garden trade. They have shown a lot of interest in selling this freshwater filter-feeder for use in aquaria to keep them clear and in garden ponds.
Ontario's educational materials are being used as a model for efforts in the United States to encourage Great Lakes boaters to dry scrape and/or disinfect hulls before launching in inland waters.
A last concern of ours for the spread of zebra mussels is that many classrooms and labs now have these in their facilities and they are extremely easy to spread down the drain, just a little bit of water can have veliger larvae. It has been amazing to people who are rearing them how easy it is to move it from one tank to another just with a net. That is enough to do it. That is a concern and US legislation specifically mentions the need to develop a policy for handling these things in the lab and to get that information out. I think that is important.
Finally, a little concern of ours is that control measures being developed for zebra mussels will, hopefully, be environmentally safe and there will not be any unadvised relaxation of chemical permits for expediency's sake in the rush to control zebra mussels.
I did hand this out. This is a joint report our commission made with the International Joint Commission on zebra mussels, and there were recommendations for the federal governments in there.
Mr Wood: I want to ask a question on the ballast water as far as ships are concerned. It seems some are complying and some are not. In your opinion, would we have to have 100% compliance in order to control it? Somebody suggested yesterday that it could go up as high as 97% of the ships in which the ballast water is being either treated or controlled. What are your comments on that?
Mrs Dochoda: Guidelines in epidemiology for how severe are the steps you take to contain something have to do with how severe and how permanent the result is. If you look back over the long term, if you are only getting 80% of the ships exchanging, then all you have done is put it off 20 years and the result will be permanent; the zebra mussel is permanent. There are thousands -- millions probably -- of different species that could be brought in, and over time you get them all, more slowly at 80% but not at all at 100%, and that is why we believe 100% compliance is essential.
Mr Wood: The reason I asked is that there is some correspondence from Mr Lewis saying that the University of Toronto is looking into it and doing samples and various things to see if the exchange of ballast water is effective. This is just as of about a week ago. I just thought I would let you know that there is a chance that a lot of ships are still dumping their ballast water and bringing in other species.
Mr Waters: Going on with what Mr Wood had to say, would it then be your recommendation that Canada, as they are in the US, should pass a law regulating the change, rather than using the voluntary procedures that are being talked about?
Mrs Dochoda: I think it is like highway speeds; most people would keep within them because it is the right thing to do, and some people need a penalty and they need to know that it is going to be enforced before they will slow down. That is, I think, what the Coast Guard is up against. The shippers have been pretty co-operative as a whole. If they understand what is being asked of them, they have been pretty good. There is a tiny minority who are putting at risk our use of the water and the resource. Yes, I think there need to be regulations. I think there need to be adequate resources for monitoring too, and penalties that serve as a deterrent. It does not have to be money; it could be just stopping them, just turning them away. That is the worst thing you could do to shippers -- I think their running time is worth something like $50,000 a day -- just holding them up.
1050
Mr Waters: What you are saying is regulation without enforcement is virtually useless for those people. Do you have regular contact with the people from the Canadian government or the Coast Guard?
Mrs Dochoda: Pretty regularly. We speak periodically. Under the water quality agreement the two coast guards meet together, and we first advised them of this in 1988. Since then we have had fairly regular correspondence on it. We have tried to be helpful to them. For example, the University of Toronto study, we helped bring them together with people who could study it, that kind of thing. We have tried to be useful.
Mr McLean: The previous administration here had a ministerial committee set up and the strategy was put in place. Have you had any input into that committee or strategy to deal with the zebra mussel?
Mrs Dochoda: Informal conversation with some biologists.
Mr McLean: From what department?
Mrs Dochoda: From the Ministry of Natural Resources.
Mr McLean: you have had discussions with them.
Mrs Dochoda: Informal.
Mr McLean: You have nothing that you have given them in writing that indicated input from the fishery commission.
Mrs Dochoda: No.
The Chair: I will just bring to the committee's attention, we have now reached the 20-minute limit. Is it the committee's wish to continue asking questions of this witness?
Mr Ruprecht: I have a question, Mr Chairman. I am concerned about your last recommendation, or at least the problem that you pinpoint for us. The reason is that we have heard from a number of presenters now who have had the same concerns, I think, about the chemical discharges and usage of chemical agents to prevent zebra mussels from increasing.
We have heard that there were 10 antifouling agents such as copper that had been used on boats. One figure I have in front of me is a concern that there might be as many as 5,000 tons of copper antifouling paint scraped off into the environment every year. There are reports that the Ministry of the Environment permits, with the blessing of the Ministry of Natural Resources, that chlorine is being used as, at this point, the only way to stop and to eliminate some zebra mussels from settling into water pipes. Some reports say that we have usage of 0.5 parts per million by certain municipalities. Other reports say no, the limit is only 2.5 by the Ministry of the Environment. Other reports say that we can get rid of zebra mussels by using less chlorine. Then there are the poisons, polymer waxes and other kinds of chemicals that are being used.
Now, you are raising an interesting point. You are pointing out that the relaxation of chemical permits for expediency's sake in the rush to control zebra mussels should be at least looked at or that practice should not be permitted. Would you then agree that an expansion of using certain agents, chemical agents' introduction into the Great Lakes, is a danger to our environment?
Mrs Dochoda: We use selective toxicants to kill sea lampreys and it is very well studied and very documented what the effect is on the environment. Again, we hear little stories and that sort of thing. We are just very concerned that all programs should receive that level of scrutiny and care in conservation. It is just a general concern.
Mr Ruprecht: What makes you say to this committee -- this is your last point, I understand -- "Whatever you do, do not relax chemical permits in the rush to control zebra mussels"?
Mrs Dochoda: Did I say "unadvisedly"?
Mr Ruprecht: Unless you want to rush over what I would consider the major point of your presentation. If that is what you wish to do, of course we will take that into account.
Mrs Dochoda: No, I say ensure environmentally safe control measures for zebra mussels.
Mr Ruprecht: What makes you say that to us? Why would you think that --
Mrs Dochoda: That you would do anything other than that?
Mr Ruprecht: Right, or that we would relax chemical permits.
Mr McLean: The previous administration did not do much.
Mr Ramsay: Mr Chairman, where are we now?
The Chair: If we could maintain some sense of order and deal with Mr Ruprecht's question.
Mrs Dochoda: This is a particular concern of our commission and it was also raised by the International Joint Commission. It is based on fear-of-the-future stories, the Ottawa stories and Lake Michigan and just concerns, so we are just reinforcing that we believe you should ensure environmentally safe control measures to zebra mussels. I would not expect that you would do anything other than that.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation and thank you for being a witness this morning.
ONTARIO FEDERATION OF ANGLERS AND HUNTERS
The Chair: The next witness is the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and appearing on its behalf is Dr Terry Quinney. Welcome, Dr Quinney. You can proceed whenever you are ready.
Dr Quinney: Good morning, Mr Chairman, members. Being distributed to you are two items, one a stapled package that appears quite thick, but quite frankly we have included a series of appendices and background information that we feel will be of value in your deliberations. There is a one-page sheet, separately, of recommendations.
If I may begin by spending a few moments describing who we are and what we do, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters is the largest conservation organization in Ontario. We are a 63-year-old, non-government, non-profit, charitable organization whose 74,000 members sponsor research, work in habitat rehabilitation, conduct education programs, consult with governments and co-ordinate conservation programs with other organizations. The OFAH mandate includes the protection and enhancement of fish and wildlife populations and their habitats, and the promotion of associated recreational activities.
Members get their hands dirty, their feet wet and put their money where their mouths are in order to fulfil the OFAH mandate, a mandate which seeks a healthy environment for all of the residents of Ontario. In many respects, OFAH has been promoting sustainable development for 63 years in this province, but previously we had been calling it conservation.
1100
Members of our board of directors include renowned scientists such as Dr Ed Crossman, curator of ichthyology at the Royal Ontario Museum, and Dr Dave Ankney of the University of Western Ontario. Dr Ankney's laboratory is currently conducting research on the impact of zebra mussels on waterfowl.
At the head office in Peterborough, soon to be home of much of the head office operations of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, OFAH has about 30 full-time employees. The fish and wildlife services department has among its staff a scientist, a fisheries biologist, a wildlife biologist and a land use planner. I mention this simply to illustrate that OFAH has made significant and long-term investments in protecting a healthy environment.
My own training has been in freshwater biology. My first thesis and published scientific paper concerned the ecology of a native water flea species, Daphnia pulex, which is a very important food item for certain fish species and waterfowl alike. More recently, I have published on the reproductive rates of birds in wetland habitats.
Risks from zebra mussels and purple loosestrife: Over three million people fish recreationally every year in our province -- most of them are residents -- more than half a million people enjoy hunting, and thousands and thousands of additional residents say they would like to participate in these recreational activities if they were provided with the opportunity.
In the Great Lakes basin, the total annual regional economic impact of the recreational and commercial fisheries was between $2 billion and $4 billion in 1985. The fisheries provided some 84,000 worker-years of employment, and sport fishing effort was estimated at 54.9 million angler-days in that year. That information was provided by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, which you just heard from.
In Ontario in 1985, anglers and hunters spent over $2 billion on activities, supplies, major purchases and investments directly connected with their sports. That information comes from our own Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
The distribution and redistribution of this wealth is also important -- for example, from the south to the north and from urban to non-urban economies -- but clearly money and jobs are only two components of the direct benefits obtained from recreational fishing and hunting.
Consider the family bonding benefits of a day on the water, the health benefits of regular hikes in and around wetlands and the bush; the psychological benefits of being absorbed in an outdoor activity, away from the stresses and strains of everyday life in the modern world; the dietary benefits of wholesome food on the table, free of chemical additives or preservatives.
Angling and hunting also serve as concrete examples of linking our environment with the economy and quality of life -- in other words, serve as examples of the potential for truly sustainable development.
All of the above benefits I have described are at risk of being reduced or obliterated by involuntary introductions of non-native species. But clearly, not all non-native species are detrimental. On Tuesday, you heard Ministry of Natural Resources scientist Dr Joe Leach say that the planned introduction of, for example, brown trout and chinook salmon, among others -- we could also list things like rainbow trout -- has been very beneficial by contributing, for example, to sport fisheries. However, it is the involuntary introductions that have brought me here to address you today.
What I would like to do now then is highlight some of the important things that you have heard from witnesses who appeared before you on Tuesday, without undue repetition. I will add some comments and finish with some recommendations. Additionally, I urge you to carefully read the accompanying appendices with the presentation, clearly showing the history of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' involvement in the subject of exotic species in Ontario.
With reference to purple loosestrife, this past Tuesday you heard Laurel Whistance-Smith, manager, habitat and stewardship section of the wildlife branch of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, say: "The impact of purple loosestrife on native vegetation has been disastrous. The plant readily out-competes native plant species and then forms dense, non-specific stands which appear to maintain themselves indefinitely. In the United States alone, 190,000 hectares of wetland habitat are lost annually to purple loosestrife." She also told you, "There are indications of serious reductions in waterfowl and aquatic furbearer productivity, because purple loosestrife does not provide suitable habitat for food, nesting and shelter."
Dr Jon Stanley of the US Fish and Wildlife Service told you: "The best chance for attaining control of purple loosestrife in North America is through biological control. Three natural enemies of purple loosestrife" -- which are being tested -- "are a weevil and two beetles. However, even if the program is successful, it will still take a number of years before results can be obtained in the field. Until that time, other measures must be used on a site-specific basis to protect wetlands and bare soils from takeover by purple loosestrife."
Dr Stanley also said that the United States would welcome Canadian participation in its research and control efforts. We certainly hope that will occur.
On zebra mussels, Dr David Garton, the Ohio State University scientist, told you on Tuesday, "In all my years in biology, I have never seen an organism come from nowhere so quickly to dominate a system so completely."
Chris Brousseau, the zebra mussel program co-ordinator, fisheries branch, Ministry of Natural Resources, said that zebra mussel densities in certain Great Lakes locations have exceeded 500,000 per square metre, but that European densities reach only about 5,000 per square metre. In other words, our densities are 100 times greater than in Europe.
Dr Gerry Mackie, University of Guelph, told you that Great Lakes zebra mussels grow twice as fast as the European ones and that we appear to have our own unique populations. We cannot emulate the European examples, he said.
Each of the scientists you heard from, Leach, Mackie, Stanley and Garton, mentioned the potential harmful effects to the food chain posed by the zebra mussels, as well as fish habitat such as spawning areas.
We brought in a display to again illustrate the potential danger with reference to fish habitat. We use this display in some of our educational efforts to illustrate first hand the terrible potential detrimental effects on spawning that zebra mussels may have.
A very valuable species like walleye, a native species in Ontario waters, very popular -- great eating, by the way -- will spawn on clean, hard, rocky surfaces. What the zebra mussels of course are doing -- and you have heard this for two days now -- is simply literally carpeting, coating, what were once very productive spawning areas. The full repercussions of this phenomenon we do not know at this point in time, but it is not only the physical loss of space, the physical loss of where those eggs used to be laid. You were also told that the zebra mussels are filter feeders. In other words, they are sucking food out of the water column, food that was available to other native organisms in the water bodies. Again, simply a visual demonstration of the terrible impact this organism can potentially have.
1110
Dr Stanley, US Fish and Wildlife Service, said on Tuesday, "There is an immediate need to develop zebra mussel population control measures, to minimize their impacts on water intakes of industries and on fish and native mussels in the Great Lakes basin." In response to one of your questions, Dr Garton said: "Do everything you can to slow the spread. We should commit resources to limit the distribution and spread within North America."
Let us not forget, however, that we have successfully faced the threat of other exotics in the past, for example, the sea lamprey. However, that success has been predicated on a sustained long-term commitment to control and constant vigilance. Recently, government commitments have wavered and the result has been an unfortunate increase in lamprey populations in certain locations.
I would ask you to be very sceptical when you hear the words: "We must learn to live with organisms like zebra mussels. We must learn to live with organisms like purple loosestrife." The caution I offer is this, and perhaps I can give an example from my own home or my own backyard, so to speak. In some respects I co-exist with houseflies, but I manage houseflies. When people say that we can co-exist with sea lampreys and co-exist with zebra mussels, hopefully what they mean is that we will do our utmost to minimize the negative impacts they can have and take control of the situation and actively pursue management techniques.
On the theme of additional threats, game farming in Ontario, that is, commercial businesses which raise native and non-native deer species, in other words, containment for profit, is in our opinion a time bomb waiting to go off. The threats are from several sources, for example, transmission of diseases to our wild populations of native organisms, genetic pollution, escaped animals usurping and displacing resident animals etc.
To conclude, on behalf of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters I would like to thank the committee for offering us the opportunity to participate in your important deliberations. It is our hope that you will view the potential catastrophes posed by careless introductions of non-native species as an opportunity to demonstrate to the people of our province that our elected representatives do not undervalue our renewable natural resources, do not undervalue healthy fish and wildlife populations, do not undervalue healthy ecosystems. It is also our hope that you will attempt to ensure that government agencies such as Ontario's Ministry of Natural Resources receive the budgets necessary to begin immediate control programs.
I finish by drawing to your attention the sheet of recommendations we have produced for your consideration. Very briefly, we have four immediate recommendations with reference to purple loosestrife, four with reference to zebra mussels, two with reference to game farming and one with reference to the prevention of future disasters.
We recommend with reference to purple loosestrife:
1. Immediately terminate all commercial sales;
2. Declare immediately as a noxious weed;
3. Ensure that the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources has the budgets to implement immediately the research and control programs now co-ordinated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service;
4. Petition the federal government of Canada to implement the research and control programs now co-ordinated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
With reference to zebra mussels, we would like to recommend to your committee:
1. Attempt to halt the spread to our inland water bodies;
2. Ensure that the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources has the budget to implement immediately the research and control programs now co-ordinated by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service;
3. Direct the Ontario renewable resource research grant program -- it is commonly referred to as ORRRGP -- to identify zebra mussel research and management as a top priority;
4. Increase immediately proactive educational programs targeted to slow the spread.
With reference to game farming:
1. Terminate immediately the game farming of ungulate species, that is, wild, hoofed mammals or what were wild, hoofed mammals;
2. Please urge all three political parties to make the proposed Ontario Game and Fish Act amendments a high priority for early passage.
Finally, with reference to the prevention of future disasters, we would like to recommend the immediate, enforceable halt of all foreign ballast discharges into fresh waters.
Thank you very much.
Mr Ramsay: Dr Quinney, I appreciate your list of recommendations. I must say, though, that I think you are being rather selective in your recommendations. I would go so far as to say that I think you are being very inconsistent in your thought processes in the position you are putting before us today. On the one hand, on page 3 you say that not all non-native species are detrimental and you are very pleased with the introductions the MNR has done in the past into the natural environment; obviously, they are good species of fish, and I know they have brought economic and recreational benefit to the people of Ontario. On the other hand, you come down very hard on game farming, which is not certainly an intentional introduction into the environment. It is a continuation of, I guess, mankind's attempt to domesticate certain animals. It is my understanding that the exotic game animals we do domesticate here and raise for food consumption are not identical to the wild species we have in Ontario. How do you explain what I feel is an inconsistency in this thinking?
Dr Quinney: You have raised several points. Yes, we have been selective. If we had the time and resources we would certainly expand on some additional specific examples with reference to detrimental organisms. However, we have not been inconsistent because there is a difference between planned introductions and involuntary invasions.
With reference to your comments on game farming, our members actually felt the same way you did until relatively recently. The reason for the change is that we have now been provided with direct evidence that the repercussions from game farming simply were not taken into the cost-benefit analysis, if you like, before game farming was introduced to this province. In other words, in the example of game farming, there may be short-term direct benefits to certain elements of our society. Unfortunately, when the entire context, for example, the effects on other elements of the ecosystem, the risk of disease transmission to our wild and native organisms, is taken into account, it is our position that now, with the available evidence, when all of the true costs are taken into account they greatly outweigh the benefits that can be obtained from this commercial enterprise.
1120
Mr Ramsay: Have there been disease transmissions from game farm animals to any of our native species?
Dr Quinney: It is my understanding that there are documented cases in, for example, Alberta. In Ontario we know that recently, in the case of the Sundridge game farm, most unfortunately the entire herd had to be destroyed because of disease within the herd. We also know examples from other jurisdictions, for example, Maryland, where the sika deer has, literally, in the wild now displaced the native white-tail deer.
Mr Ramsay: I certainly agree with you, the Sundridge incident was an immense tragedy. That sort of thing should not be allowed to happen. I take it from your answer to my question that maybe in Ontario to date we have not had transmission of disease. What you are saying is that there is potential because of the Sundridge situation. Is that what you are trying to point out, that if some of those animals escaped, the potential is there for transmission?
Dr Quinney: That is precisely the reason we use the words "a time bomb waiting to go off."
Mr Ruprecht: I appreciate Dr Quinney's presentation and the exhibit you brought along, which I find very useful. You have in your presentation not mentioned your concern about chemical controls. I am looking at your supplement. In your supplement you actually mentioned that the Ontario naturalists would be very much opposed to using chemical means to control zebra mussels. How do you feel about the Ministry of Natural Resources in its pamphlet saying you may use one tablespoon of bleach per 4.5 litres of hot, soapy water to clean your boats? Is this only one of the aspects you would caution this committee about? What are your concerns about using chemical agents?
Dr Quinney: With reference to specific control measures, particularly in the chemical realm, I would defer to the experts. However, in the long run, we would certainly like to see totally environmentally friendly combat agents used, so to speak. However, the judicious use of highly specific chemicals should not at this time, in my professional opinion, be ruled out as an option. If I may return to the example of the sea lamprey to illustrate that, it is my understanding that a highly specific chemical has been developed to control the sea lamprey. It is administered in very, very low dosages. The only organism it is lethal to is the larval stage of the lamprey. What our federation visualizes -- and again we are basing our opinions largely on the work that has already been done by the US Fish and Wildlife Service -- essentially we hope to have a whole tool box, if you like, of methods of control, both with reference to purple loosestrife, for example, and zebra mussels.
Mr Ruprecht: To ensure that I understand this correctly, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters would be in favour of using chemical devices for the interim period but would caution that they ought not to be used in the long term. Do I understand that correctly?
Dr Quinney: Again, on the specific question of chemical agents, we would defer to the scientific expertise in that realm; if it were the scientific recommendation that a particular chemical be used, yes, we would agree.
Mr McLean: Does your organization have any input into the interministerial committee?
Dr Quinney: No, sir.
Mr McLean: Were you asked?
Dr Quinney: No, sir.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Dr Quinney, for appearing this morning.
GREENPEACE
The Chair: Our next witness is Greenpeace. Appearing on behalf of Greenpeace is Jay Palter.
Mr Palter: I would like to start by thanking you for the opportunity to speak today. I understand I have 20 minutes. Will someone give me an idea when I am getting towards that so I can get right to the point? You are all getting copies right now of more or less the remarks I am going to make today.
I am going to focus on two points. There has been somebody from Greenpeace listening to some of the other presentations and I have been getting reports about them, so I have some idea of what you have already heard. I would like to focus today basically on two themes. The first theme, which I am sure you have heard a lot of already, is the theme of prevention. The second theme, which I am not sure how much you have heard of -- if you have, I am going to say it again -- is the focus on chlorine and talking about a chlorine-free response to this problem. I am also, where possible, going to try not to use the word "controlling" exotic species or zebra mussels, because I think what we are really doing is responding to a problem that is there, and we should think of it as responding rather than controlling in the environment.
The prevention argument is pretty common-sense. I am going to try to focus my remarks on zebra mussels, because I think the urge to respond to this matter has come from the zebra mussels' peculiar way of affecting human population in ways that other foreign exotic species in the Great Lakes have not, or at least not to the same extent. When pipes from industrial facilities start getting clogged up and intake pipes start getting clogged up, all of a sudden there is a lot of concern and we have to deal with the problem, where for many, many years we have had a lot of foreign species in the Great Lakes doing all sorts of damage to the ecosystem and causing all sorts of unbalances in the ecosystem.
So the concept of prevention is quite simple. It basically looks at a problem and says, "Our current experience of that problem suggests we have to respond to the current problem and prevent it from happening again in the future." There will be more exotic species that come into the Great Lakes via ballast water and the various other pathways they take to get into the ecosystem, and it would be a grave mistake not to take measures now to ensure that we cover as many as possible of those avenues of entrance into the Great Lakes basin. In particular, I am going to focus my remarks on the ballast water problem, foreign vessels coming into the Great Lakes and discharging their ballast water.
1130
There are no enforceable regulations currently in place in Canada with respect to ballast water discharges or any exotic species. There are only voluntary guidelines, called the Great Lakes ballast water control guidelines. Those guidelines essentially voluntarily call for the exchange of ballast water at sea, at a specified depth, or, in the event of bad weather, the exchange of ballast water no further west than the St Lambert lock, which is near Montreal.
It seems fairly clear to me that voluntary guidelines have not worked so far. We are facing an incursion of yet another foreign species into the Great Lakes. It is quite clear that voluntary guidelines will never work and that what we need are legally enforceable standards and the political will to enforce them.
I would further argue that if the federal government simply went ahead and legislated the current guidelines, we would not be protected from such things as zebra mussels or other species as they can be discharged in the St Lawrence River and migrate into the Great Lakes basin.
The main points with respect to prevention are: The best way to control exotic species is to prevent their entrance into the system in the first place. It makes a lot of sense, but it is very easy to ignore that while we are dealing with the urgency of any given infestation problem. I cannot emphasize it any more. It is quite clear. I think Ontario has quite an interest, touching four of the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes being fundamental to the quality of life of Ontario, that if it does not have the powers necessary, it should certainly undertake to work co-operatively with those jurisdictions that do have the powers, including the federal government of Canada and the United States, to work towards a very strong enforcement regime to prevent further exotic species from coming into the Great Lakes.
I am going to turn the balance of my talk to the various control methods or methods of responding to this problem. The one I am particularly going to address is a chemical response and the use of chlorine in various forms to essentially prevent or stop or control zebra mussel infestation. I am going to speak here specifically about zebra mussels because, as I said, I believe the zebra mussels have caused this issue to come up at this point and I think the chlorine solution is specifically targeted at zebra mussels.
Over the past 50 years chlorine has increasingly become a preferred and favourite antibacterial agent. It is used commonly in sewage treatment, it is used commonly in drinking water treatment and now it is being proposed widely for use as zebra mussel control.
There are a couple of reasons that is the case. First, chlorine is really cheap; relatively speaking, its cost in dollars is very cheap. As I will explain later, its environmental cost in the long term is exceedingly expensive; in a full cost-benefit analysis I think we would find it to be not worth the cost and not worth the risk.
But right now, on the market chlorine is a cheap solution to this problem, and it is an easy solution to the problem in the sense that no major changes in processes or operations at the industrial facilities that are mostly affected need to be made and the permitting process for getting permission to use chlorine is a relatively easy process in relation to other chemical substances.
But, as I said, the environmental effects of using chlorine have short-term impacts and long-term impacts. In the printed material I handed you, I will draw your attention to the third page. There are basically three arguments or three points I am going to expand on here.
In general, chlorine, when released into the environment, tends to bind with organic materials and form very persistent and very toxic chemical compounds referred to as organochlorines. Persistence is a very damaging environmental quality, because a chemical that is persistent does not break down in the environment or breaks down into other persistent and toxic compounds. As a result of that characteristic, it tends to accumulate in the environment. Depending on the type of chemical, organochlorines tend to be lipophilic, or attracted to fatty tissues. These persistent chemicals build up in the food chain and are in fact magnified by the food chain. That process is referred to as biomagnification or bioaccumulation.
As human beings as well as other living organisms are part of the ecosystem, those chemicals end up accumulating in our bodies. The extent of that contamination is conveyed most dramatically by the fact that most nursing women living in the Great Lakes basin currently have measurable levels of a whole range of organochlorine contaminants in their predominantly fatty breast milk. This is a grave concern certainly for the scientific community and for our society at large, because of the uncertainty of the effects of not only the breast milk contamination but the in utero exposure that young foetuses and young infants are getting to these chemicals. This is a very widespread problem. Any time you use chlorine, there is a link to the contribution to that problem.
Organochlorines have other effects. I have mentioned some of the reproductive links. There are also other organ damages caused by organochlorines. As well, there is another subgroup of chemicals that have been widely identified to be created when you chlorinate drinking water or when you chlorinate sewage, referred to as trihalomethanes or THMs. Many of the THMs are also carcinogenic. If you are drinking tap water today, you are probably taking in several parts per billion at least of those.
Some other points about organochlorines and chlorine in particular: They come from a multiplicity of sources; they do not only come from disinfection of drinking water or sewage or controlling zebra mussels with chlorine. They are produced when you bleach pulp with chlorine in quite large quantities in the pulp and paper industry; they are produced when you incinerate any material that has chlorine components or organochlorines in it. In other words, municipal solid waste incinerators produce organochlorines, in particular dioxins but others as well, as a result of the presence of many plastics and chlorine-based chemicals in the garbage.
Hazardous waste incinerators that burn chlorinated materials are similar. Of course, with sewage sludge, if there has been chlorine exposed to the sludge, there is a possibility of organochlorine formation there as well. So virtually all forms of incineration with a chlorine-related material are a generator of organochlorines.
There are other sources as well. I have discussed some of them already. Basically, the point is that when we begin adding chlorine to deal with this problem, if that is the decision made, we will simply be adding to an already serious problem in the environment. It is clear that because of the multiplicity of sources, the cumulative effect of all the chlorine sources and all the effects need to be taken into consideration before we rush headlong into using chlorine to try to control this zebra mussel problem.
Finally, I have alluded already to the fact that the chlorine life-cycle itself is a very toxic one and a very dangerous one. From the manufacture, use and disposal of chlorine, all stages, we get the creation of persistent toxic chemicals. Some of the worst chemicals -- dioxins, PCBs, DDT, CFCs -- are all organochlorines. We are most familiar with them, because all of them have been confronted and banned at some level with the exception of dioxins, whose acceptable levels are being raised by governments all over the world, acknowledging the multiple sources of them and the very difficult task of trying to stop those sources.
1140
It is quite clear that the whole chlorine question and moving away from chlorine because of its various effects on the environment ultimately takes us back to a re-examination of the fundamental issue of chlorine-based chemistry, that is, the chlor-alkali process, where the chlorine is taken out of the salt and then becomes a very harmless environmental contaminant.
It is quite clear that Greenpeace opposes the use of chlorine to control zebra mussels. In a sense, it is creating or adding to a much larger environmental problem in order to solve this current dilemma.
There are various physical and mechanical alternatives I have alluded to here: Strainers and filters can be put on pipes; higher flow rates can be maintained in the pipes; physical scraping, which can be expensive and time consuming, but is still preferable to any chemical use; constructing dual pipes to allow you to shut one off while you are pumping in the other: positioning pipes farther down in the lake where the temperatures are colder tends to be an alternative, because the mussels tend not to gather at quite the same concentrations in colder temperatures farther down in the lake. Of course, the best solution would be an integrated approach of these various physical and mechanical alternatives.
I will conclude with the recommendations, which are quite specific. We are recommending that there be a declaration that any use of chlorine to control zebra mussels is a temporary, interim measure and that the Ministry of the Environment should only issue temporary permits for chlorine use, because this is not a long-term solution. Greenpeace recognizes that there may be some short-term problems with pipes being blocked. Wherever possible, physical or mechanical means should be taken to clear those situations up. In the long term, those are the preferable methods, but in the short term we recognize there may be a temporary need for limited chlorine use.
Any temporary permit that is issued for this chlorine use must contain a sunset provision. That provision will specify a date after which chlorine use for controlling the zebra mussel problem will not be permitted. We recommend that that sunset period be as short as possible but no longer than one year. I must emphasize that any permit or any intention for an interim use of chlorine without a sunset date attached to it will be considered a failure. Greenpeace would consider that a failure to give chlorine use the appropriate concern this government should give it.
No permit, of course, should be granted that gives exemptions to any provincial water quality objectives specifically focusing on chlorine or chloride discharges.
Finally, I mentioned before as well that the Ontario government may not have the authority to make decisions or pass legislation with respect to preventing exotic species from coming into the Great Lakes. We have recommended that in conjunction with the federal government, and the US government if necessary, we undertake a prevention strategy and implement appropriate legislation, and do that in the spirit of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
The Chair: We have exceed the time. If the committee is in agreement, we will allow Mr Ruprecht and Ms Churley questions.
Mr Ruprecht: Thank you very much for your presentation, especially your explanation of organochlorines, dioxins, PCBs, DDT and CFCs. I want to know from you, though, what would your position be, having indicated to us that we should be very cautious in using chlorine -- I would certainly sympathize with that, but we are in a quandary here, are we not? The Ministry of Natural Resources in its little pamphlet is saying we could use chlorine, and it is indicating specifically how and what the measurements are. First, would you be in agreement with the recommendation of the ministry, as it put out this pamphlet? Second, the Ministry of the Environment says that up to 2.5 parts per million of chlorine can be used in order to come to grips with the zebra mussel problem in the Great Lakes in terms of piping, removing them from the water intake parts. Would you address yourself to those two questions.
Mr Palter: The first point is that in addition to the chemicals you have listed and I have listed, I should have put in "etc." There are a lot of chemicals other than those ones. I just wanted to clarify that point.
It is quite clear from my presentation that Greenpeace does not endorse or support or agree with the Ministry of Natural Resources' recommendations for chlorine use with respect to zebra mussels. I specified that the preference of Greenpeace for the sake of the environment is not to use any chlorine in dealing with this problem. I think it is possible to do that, but there may be situations where chlorine on a temporary, interim basis will be deemed appropriate to deal with the problem.
What I have said is that as long as there is a firm date set after which that will not be deemed appropriate -- the way I have worded it in the recommendation is that that date should be attached to each permit to temporarily use chlorine, or any permit. I think there should be a preference away from it and to use mechanical and physical means wherever possible, but clearly, if there is going to be a decision made -- and it would not be Greenpeace's preference to use chlorine, it has to be on a temporary basis and there have to be firm commitments in place that make sure it becomes a temporary measure, if only to promote how important the various ministries involved consider the alternatives. I think it is really important, and unless you set a date after which you stop doing something it does not matter how important you say the alternatives are, there is no incentive to do them. I hope that addresses the question, that any use of chlorine will have to have a sunset date attached to it.
Ms Churley: Was someone from Greenpeace here yesterday when Ontario Hydro gave its presentation, or have you seen the documents it put forward?
Mr Palter: No, no one was here and we have not seen their documents.
Ms Churley: Part of their presentation was for lay people. I do not quite grasp the numbers that are being thrown around, but they talked about injecting chlorine at two parts per million for one-half hour every 12 hours, etc, and then continuously at 0.3 to 0.5 parts per million. Also, when I asked about testing for trihalomethanes, they said they have been testing and they were not finding any traces whatsoever.
I just wanted to know if you have a comment on the whole scheme of things. You outlined that chlorine is being widely used, as we know, in all kinds of areas that have to be looked at, but in the whole scheme of things, what is your opinion on the amounts of chlorine that are being used as an interim method, as it is right now?
Mr Palter: That is a bit of a difficult question.
Ms Churley: If you look at total load, I guess, how does it fit in?
Mr Palter: As I said, it should be clear that Greenpeace's position here is that the best way to solve this problem is staying away from chlorine. There are other methods to deal with it. They may be more expensive, they may be more labour intensive and they may require more changes, but the zebra mussels are not going to disappear. With respect, it is a long-term problem that needs to be dealt with in a long-term way.
1150
With respect to the actual quantities and commenting on the quantities, I would need to actually see the documents. It is very difficult. I will also add that the points I am trying to make are not simply related to the formation of THMs, trihalomethanes, organochlorines, when you chlorinate the water, only in that situation. The introduction to the environment of more free chlorine floating around looking for something organic to attach to is taking us in the wrong direction. That chlorine represents a massive issue that this society needs to debate, needs to discuss and needs to come to some position on. It would be a step in the wrong direction for any government body or any ministry to advocate increasing chlorine use anywhere and still maintain that that was in the best interests of the environment.
This is at a time when chlorine production is actually going down and some successes are being achieved by the environmental movement, particularly because the pulp and paper industry, while not achieving zero discharge and it still needs to be urged to do so, is in the process of reducing its chlorine use. I think it would be a retrograde step to introduce more uses for chlorine at a time when chlorine is starting to be acknowledged to be as dangerous as it is.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Palter, and thank you for taking the extra time to provide answers to those questions.
Mr McLean: I wonder if I could get a clarification. As you are aware, I was ill Tuesday and was not here. I wanted to find out if the report of the interministerial committee that was set up was presented by the ministry on Tuesday, or at what stage that report is. I have not heard anything of it, and I was just curious to know where it is at. It should have been before this committee as it is dealing with this very important issue.
The Chair: I will take your concerns under advisement and I will endeavour to find out where that report is.
Mr McLean: Does the parliamentary assistant not know?
Mr Wood: I will have to find out.
GREAT LAKES UNITED
The Chair: The next witness is Great Lakes United, and Bruce Kershner is appearing on its behalf.
Mr Kershner: My name is Bruce Kershner. I am an environmental scientist and I am the field co-ordinator with Great Lakes United. Great Lakes United is a binational coalition of over 180 groups from throughout the Great Lakes-St Lawrence River ecosystem. Our membership, which includes community groups, environmental organizations, city and county governments, unions, small businesses, anglers and boaters, extends from Duluth at the western end of the basin to Quebec City along the St Lawrence River outflow. This statement is made on behalf of this community of organizations which is deeply concerned about the condition of the Great Lakes.
I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to testify here. During this presentation I would like to convey three essential messages. The first is that there is an urgent need to focus on prevention of the introduction of more exotic species. Second, the provincial government must provide funding and cost-sharing for research programs that are investigating solutions to control the mussels and prevent future invasions. Third, it is imperative that in controlling the zebra mussels we do not introduce cures that are worse for the Great Lakes environment than the scourge we are trying to manage.
As far as the first point, prevention, is concerned, this hearing should not just be about the zebra mussel or about the plant species the purple loosestrife but about all those future exotic species that will invade our waters unless we legislate preventive methods now. There is the real potential that some future species may actually be more destructive than even the zebra mussel and the lamprey.
I would like to point out that among fishery experts the worst fear is that a disease, rather than a fish species or other vertebrate species, could spread throughout the Great Lakes from another continent and could basically devastate entire species. It is a very real possibility.
The introduction of the zebra mussel into the Great Lakes was preventable. Once in the Great Lakes, the zebra mussel and other exotic species are difficult, if not impossible, to control. The best and most effective method of addressing the problem of introduction of exotic species is to simply prevent them from ever getting here. While the door cannot be shut on the zebra mussel, the door can be shut on other potentially damaging organisms. The zebra mussel dilemma we are now faced with can and should be a powerful message to all of us of the difficulty of addressing problems once they are in the lakes. Like toxic chemicals which cannot be mopped up once they are in the lakes, exotic species must be prevented from entering the system.
To prevent introductions or spread of exotics, foreign ships have been asked to voluntarily exchange their ballast water in the open seas or the Gulf of St Lawrence. According to the Canadian Coast Guard, the 83% voluntary compliance rate is encouraging, but 173 ships annually -- at least as of my figures six months ago -- are not complying. It only takes one ship to introduce a pest such as the zebra mussel, and in fact it probably was only one ship that did that.
It is therefore imperative that there be a mandatory ballast exchange program and rigorous monitoring systems to ensure compliance. Such a program must be co-ordinated with Canadian shipping authorities. Only through prevention will we truly be able to protect the Great Lakes from the damaging impacts of exotic species.
My second point is much briefer, simply that the government must be in the forefront of spearheading research into solving this problem. It cannot be left to the private sector, it cannot be left to the non-profit sector. The government approach should be legislation, not just policy statements, and it must provide adequate funding and cost-sharing for local municipalities, certainly with regard to prevention, as the parable the ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure is completely applicable here.
Finally, I would like to stress that it is imperative that the solutions adopted must not contribute to or create other equally or more damaging impacts elsewhere in the ecosystem. According to a 1990 statement by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, there is no known environmentally sound way to get rid of zebra mussels. I hope they are wrong, but at this moment there is none and only research will tell us if there are environmentally sound methods. We must not lose sight of the fact that control mechanisms must not damage the ecosystem in other ways. We cannot approach the zebra mussel dilemma with a kill-the-clams-but-damn-everything-else attitude.
For some municipalities and corporate facilities, they are viewing their own problem with the zebra mussel as the thing they have to solve, without regard to whether it creates another and worse problem, such as introduction of toxics in place of the zebra mussel. For example, chlorination and other chemical control methods have been proposed for water intakes and other problem areas. These approaches should be treated cautiously.
Available evidence indicates that chlorination of water intakes may cause the formation of trihalomethanes. I am sure you are all aware of that. These halomethanes are potentially carcinogenic and could affect the quality of drinking water. Furthermore, the chlorination method works most effectively only with continuous release of that toxic element. That means relatively high levels on a constant basis, for weeks.
In response to those who say there could be an environmentally safe method of administering chlorine, which is highly unlikely, there is certainly no known way to guarantee safe transport or storage of liquid chlorine. Toxic spills and explosions are always a possibility with this unstable chemical. Again, what is done with the chlorine before it is ever used to treat zebra mussels? It is already dangerous before it gets to the zebra mussel, let alone after it.
Another example of an environmentally unsound approach that has been talked about and strongly considered for use is the use of toxic paints, such as TBT and other similar kinds of paints. These release pesticides that are just as toxic to all kinds of beneficial, native organisms and amount to nothing less than an uncontrolled toxic chemical discharge. I might add that the US Navy and the US Environmental Protection Agency have banned it on any of their facilities, on any of their vessels. It still is allowed to be used for certain classes of vessels over, I think, 82 feet, but I am not fully versed in that matter.
You may also be told about clamtrol, a clam-killing substance that is being used by some power plants. If a special filter mechanism is installed, this pesticide can kill the mussels without being discharged into the lake again, and we are very glad of that. However, our concern about this is that even if it were 100% environmentally safe, it offers only a solution for power plants, not drinking water intakes, boat engines, boat hulls, piers and breakwaters and other structures which could be attached to by zebra mussels.
Last -- and this is a highly important point -- again, looking at this from the overview, the manufacture of such pesticides almost always results in the production and release of toxic discharges at the chemical plant that produces the pesticide. Again, this kind of solution is dangerous before it ever gets to the zebra mussel.
Three methods that hold promise for being both effective and environmentally sound are potassium ion solutions, which is a preventive method, ultrasound attachments, again a preventive method -- one brand name they were aware of is Hulltrasonic -- and steam jets to kill and remove the mussels. There may be others, but these three show promise and should be the focus of government-supported research, because if these are effective, then we will not have to end up using environmentally unsound methods to attack this problem. These may not be the only environmentally promising methods, but we should certainly support research into them.
In conclusion, I would like to thank this committee for the opportunity to present this testimony and look forward to the success of our collective efforts to conserve and protect the Great Lakes ecosystem. Thank you. I will take any questions, if you have any.
1200
Mr Ruprecht: Mr Kershner, I appreciate your presentation. You talk about that you would be definitely opposed to the use of chemicals in terms of holding back the onslaught by zebra mussels. You also indicate that the use of chlorine and toxic paints and clamtrol and other items would have serious effects for our environment. Would you be in favour of the measure that is at present in use by our government and by our ministry to use chlorine on an interim basis, or do you have any other interim solutions that could be used immediately?
Mr Kershner: As far as immediate use goes, something like the clamtrol at least is effective without being seriously environmentally destructive at this time, at least as far as where it is released, as opposed to where it is produced. So something like that, yes, is a possible alternative that should be considered in the meantime, an interim alternative.
However, getting away from the pesticide and chlorine solution is the best thing in the long run and that is why I am saying that support of research into this problem may yield results quite quickly, such as the three that I mentioned, which we know work. The only question is, is it economically viable, financially viable? Is it usable in all facilities? They know that they work. I have seen the Hulltrasonic device. It has worked for years against barnacles, which attach themselves in a very similar way, but they are marine organisms, not lake organisms or river organisms.
So I think that we could have an interim use of something like clamtrol, but chlorine, to me, it is a very frightening kind of prospect to start adding more chlorine into the Great Lakes ecosystem when the whole point is that dechlorination of the ecosystem has been found to be the best solution for bringing this ecosystem back to health. I do not want to go back on that.
Mr Ruprecht: We have hundreds of places at present in Lake Ontario that take water from the lakes. Did I hear you correctly by saying that the use of clamtrol could be adequate for intake water pipes for either municipal or other uses?
Mr Kershner: For power plants, I was saying.
Mr Ruprecht: Intake water pipes.
Mr Kershner: As far as drinking water intakes, if chlorine is seen to be the only interim method at this time, then I would have to say that those should be temporary permits. It should be viewed as interim and just a priority put on research to check out these other ones. I do not think that we may have more than a year before we finally determine something that is better than chlorine.
Mr Wood: Thank you for your presentation. It was a very good presentation. I am leading up to a question. You are saying that there are 173 ships that do not comply with the voluntary controls to dumping ballast water or treating ballast water. I just want to read a sentence from the Minister of Transport in Ottawa, saying, "There is no conclusive proof that ships' ballast water discharges are the source of undesirable marine organisms." This is a letter that was written on 23 January to the Minister of Natural Resources in response to saying there should be some controls.
My question really is that if zebra mussels -- we have to live with them. It seems that way, anyway. If we were to eliminate them all tomorrow, without controls on ballast water, are we going to have them back again in a year's time without some kind of control between the federal, provincial and international shipping?
Mr Kershner: That is a very good point. Let's say that it was only found at one port and we caught it early and we got rid of it. If ballast water regulation is not implemented, it could be reintroduced, absolutely.
If I heard you correctly, you said that particular agency said that the ballast water was not necessarily the source of any of many of these exotic species.
Mr Wood: This is a letter from Doug Lewis, the Minister of Transport in Ottawa, saying that there is no conclusive proof of that and they are going to do some research or study into it.
Mr Kershner: Okay, there is a big difference between saying no conclusive proof versus the likelihood or strong suspicion of. The Great Lakes Fishery Commission has concluded that ballast water is one of the major sources of these species.
It only makes sense. I would have to ask that agency official, "So where else would they be coming from?" There are sources, but ballast water is the way to bring over huge volumes of contaminated water from freshwater ports on another continent and to have it released here. I do not know of very many other sources that would bring that kind of volume.
Mr Wood: I should have mentioned the fact that there is currently a study being carried out under contract by the University of Toronto and the federal government to look into this and do a sampling of it.
Mr Waters: You have mentioned several times here clamtrol. Why is it only available for use at power plants? Why can you not use it on municipal systems?
Mr Kershner: Because it is too toxic; it is as simple as that. What they do is put it into the system of the power plant and filter it in a clay bed before the water is discharged back out into the lake. So it has to be filtered. To do this for drinking water would mean you would have to filter before it goes into your pipes. They know that they cannot get rid of all of it, which is why it should only be an interim method.
You would not want even a small amount of clamtrol, a pesticide to be coming out of your tap water, would you? But the power plant releases it back into the lake, and most of it is kept in that clay bed. It is not the ideal situation. One does not want to do that with drinking water.
Mr Waters: So which is worse, clamtrol or chlorine, as far as being a toxic chemical?
Mr Kershner: Clamtrol is better for power plants. For drinking water intakes, I am not sure what we could do in the interim except put funding and support into research to figure out which ones are correct. There may be some waiting out there among those three that I have just mentioned that are available and safe right now.
Mr Waters: On the potassium one, it is my understanding that potassium is being tested only on one type of minnow and one type of snail and they have not looked at the rest of it, so I would not want to say that one is particularly safe at this point.
Mr Kershner: I think it may be more a matter of figuring out how to administer it in a way that maintains potassium ion levels that are high enough to impede the growth of the zebra mussel. Some of the scientists I have spoken to feel that the conclusions can probably be applied much more broadly to other molluscs.
Mr Waters: Can you explain to me how this clamtrol -- I am a bit concerned about the fact that you said this is a highly toxic thing but you think it is safe for power plants. Where did they introduce this? If they introduced it anywhere in their intake, what happens should there be an accident, should there not be any water coming in?
Mr Kershner: That is why I would only emphasize it as an interim method. I am only going by the word of the manufacturers of clamtrol and the industries that have used it along Lake Erie.
Mr Waters: This is not like an independent body. This is somebody who has a vested interest at this point.
Mr Kershner: Yes, but the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has approved it.
I am not saying that I have a solution at this moment. I am saying I am looking at this from the larger view of, if we start adopting something like chlorination as a method and then just settle on that and continue using it, that will be destructive. I want us to look at any of these interim solutions as interim and put a major thrust towards finding methods that are environmentally sound.
I cannot say what is going to happen in the next year with the zebra mussel and the methods of control, but I can say that if chlorination and other similarly destructive methods are used after that relatively short period, we will see a decline in the water quality of the Great Lakes.
The Chair: Thank you very much for appearing before us this morning. That concludes our witness list.
If the committee is in agreement, we will recess until an in camera session at 1:30 so that we may discuss with research staff the compiling and direction of the report. Are we agreed? Agreed.
The committee recessed at 1210.