Fisheries Committee on Feb. 24th, 2015

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to make a point of clarification. There's this idea out there that there's commercial fishing, which is all about livelihood, and recreational fishing, which is about recreation. But we must be really clear that there are many communities and people who depend economically on the recreational fishery.

You mentioned, Mr. Stringer, in your presentation that the recreational fishery has a value of about $8 billion in Canada. What is the equivalent value of commercial fishing in Canada?

[Kevin Stringer]

I have two points.

One is, you're absolutely right, I did say commercial livelihood. The lodges and a number of businesses depend fundamentally on the recreational fishery.

Second, it depends how you want to refer to the commercial total value. I don't know that anybody has ever done a comparison with that $8 billion, because that $8 billion includes travel costs, etc. The landed value is north of $2 billion. The total value in terms of once you have the processing sector, etc. for the commercial fishery is around over $4 billion, but that doesn't include expenditures on gas and travel, and all those types of things, which is included in that $8 billion, so it's hard to compare.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

I couldn't agree more. Even if you add a billion, it has to be $5 billion at least for commercial; it's $8 billion for the recreational. As a wise man once said, “A billion here and a billion there, pretty soon they're talking real money.” Anyway, in terms of DFO's effort in terms of the work that you do, what percent of your effort is spent on the recreational fishery versus the commercial fishery, if you could speculate on that?

[Kevin Stringer]

I would say two or three things.

Number one, it's difficult, and I said this in the remarks, to tease out what we actually do. In anticipation of today's discussion, we said, what do we spend on recreational fisheries? The challenge is when we do the science stock assessment for salmon, it supports both. We're not doing it for commercial or for recreational. So that's one. It's really hard to tease out: much of what we do supports both fisheries.

Number two, we have had a traditional focus on the commercial fishery in this department. The small craft harbour program is about commercial access, and that's traditionally where we've been. That hasn't fundamentally changed, recalling that most of the recreational fishery is managed by the provinces, but not all of it.

Number three, I would say it's growing. I would say that our focus on recreational fisheries has grown in recent years. The recreational fisheries conservation partner program, bringing into effect the fisheries protection program where we're working with recreational and angling groups and conservation groups in terms of rolling out the policy pieces, has got us closer to them. We're more connected to the Atlantic salmon, and to the Pacific Salmon Foundation, than we have been at any point in the past.

It is an issue that has grown, but I don't want to tell you that it has fundamentally changed the department's traditional focus.

One final point. The west coast has had a very active departmental engagement with the recreational groups, and it's growing on the east coast. Atlantic salmon, striped bass, others...we spend more and more of our time on that.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

In terms of the coasts where the federal government has clear jurisdiction, can you provide a value of the recreational fishery versus the commercial fishery on both coasts?

[Kevin Stringer]

We'd have to get back to you. We do have statistics on the recreational fishery.

I think in terms of the commercial fishery, the figures that I gave you—around $2 billion in landed value and $4-point-something billion in terms of total value—that includes some commercial inland, but very little commercial inland. The freshwater fishery is about $60 million, so it really is that.

I'm going to say this, and if I'm wrong we will get back to you, but it really is the coastal recreational fishery that is maybe 20% of the total amount. If you look at that list of the most fish caught, it really is walleye, perch, bass, pike, etc.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Let's talk about walleye in the inland fisheries. Back in the day, DFO used to do research on freshwater game fish. I participated in some of that work myself. Is that something that is possible, if there's a policy recommendation, that you could rekindle the work that people used to do on walleye, pike, and whitefish primarily, let's say, through the Freshwater Institute and other areas?

[Kevin Stringer]

I'll speak a little bit to the question, and I'll ask Alain to speak a little bit about what we do in freshwater science right now.

It has often been a discussion with the provinces. As I said, fisheries is a federal jurisdiction. The reality is that we have formal and informal arrangements with provinces. Provinces, for the most part, certainly the Prairies and Ontario, have taken responsibility for managing the freshwater fisheries, and that has generally included any stock assessments and that sort of work.

That said, the department does do work on freshwater fisheries. I've had the opportunity to talk to the committee about some of the work we do on aquatic invasive species and other elements, but I'll ask Alain to add.

[Alain Vézina]

Yes, as Kevin said, it's very hard to tease out exactly what part is just for recreational fishery, but overall we estimate that we spend between $45 million and $50 million in people and operating and maintenance money, on research that directly or indirectly benefits recreational fisheries. So that's research on some assessments that we do for the Great Lakes and for the central and Arctic region where we have the mandate for the recreational fishery.

Some work is done on aquatic invasive species, animal health, and also the relationship between habitat loss and productivity in freshwater. We do a lot of work that contributes indirectly.

In addition, I can mention some specific projects that might be of interest here. We have one that was funded recently on striped bass in the Miramichi, where we're trying to look at the interaction between Atlantic salmon and the striped bass, which is a very key issue for the management of those fisheries. We're looking at genetic differentiation in the Atlantic salmon stocks to see where they come from when salmon are caught in a commercial fishery in Greenland. And we're also looking at telemetry, marking the salmon and trying to see where they go, and trying to estimate mortality at sea.

We're doing a lot of work here that benefits the recreational fishery.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

What I want to zero in on is that inland freshwater sport fisheries work. Mr. Stringer pointed out that the walleye is the number one fish in Canada. The fishery is worth hundreds of millions of dollars and under the recreational fisheries program, DFO is doing work that used to be provincial...which they just don't do. I can see a partnership developing utilizing DFO's research expertise to help provinces manage inland fish stocks better, specifically, the walleye. Could you speculate on that a little bit?

[Alain Vézina]

We have done some work on the walleye in British Columbia. We provided scientific advice back in 2010 on the walleye. When it fits our mandate, such as a species-at-risk issue, we do assessment work that can be of benefit. That's not the case for the walleye, of course.

Again, a lot of the responsibility is with the provinces. Some provinces, such as British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, already do a lot of research, so we're not going to duplicate that. We're going to work with them and we're also working a lot with watershed organizations to do that research.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Well, if you look at the case of Ontario where the walleye is king, we're talking about 922,000 sport fishing licenses, something worth hundreds of millions of dollars. I can guarantee that there are huge gaps in the information in the terms of walleye management in Ontario. Again, I think if it's a mandate thing, mandates can change. Working in partnership with provinces like Ontario to manage walleye better, which is the main recreational fish, wouldn't be a bad idea I think.

[Alain Vézina]

When we have the expertise to contribute, we will explore these partnerships. Yes.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

I think expertise is not the issue. You have it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sopuck.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Mr. Stringer and everybody else. It's good to have you here.

The ground fishery dates for Prince Edward Island changed a couple of years ago. Can you elaborate on that?

It's my understanding that it's different from the rest of the Atlantic region, and also that fishermen from the other Atlantic provinces can fish in the area where the island fishermen would fish. You can imaging how well that's accepted. Why is that the case?

[Kevin Stringer]

I don't have with me the specific P.E.I. season. In terms of the general rules with respect to cod in the gulf region, it is pretty broad. There's not a license required but there are management rules depending on conservation. There's a limit of 15 per day or—this is ground fish generally—15 per day of which no more than 5 can be cod. There's no size limit. There's no license requirement. It has to be done by angling or handline. What I don't know is what the specific season is.

We can certainly get back to you on that.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

My understanding is that it used to start about July. Now it starts at Labour Day, and it's not a conservation issue from what I understand. I have been told that people are fishing in the waters, so that would not be overly accepted by fishermen.

Catch and release, of course, is a big issue in my area because of the tuna fishery. Has there been a large increase in that over the years?

I'd just like you to elaborate because there's some criticism of that, which I'm not part of. Can you elaborate on what the mortality rates are?

[Kevin Stringer]

I'll start and maybe, Alain, I'll ask you to speak. I don't know if you know about mortality rates.

I think you're referring to the charter fishery for tuna, a really interesting development—

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

It's big, and it can be a lot bigger.

[Kevin Stringer]

I spoke in my opening remarks about new opportunities for the recreational fishery, about new developments, and about making sure that we're getting more economic value out of the fishery. There's no question that it would seem that the charter fisheries are not just for tuna. We're seeing it for lobster, for cod, and for other fisheries. We don't have a fully developed management regime for it yet. We have specific rules in all the different fisheries for it. The challenge is that it's not really a recreational fishery and it's not really a commercial fishery. It's something new, but it's certainly a tourist thing.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

It's a sport fishery.

[Kevin Stringer]

Yes. We're still working on management rules for it.

That said, we have very strict management rules for the tuna fishery and the charter fishery. We have daily catch limits, limits on how many hookups you can have—those types of things. What we don't know is how much is charged by the individual tour operator; that's up to them. We see it as a significant opportunity and as a growth opportunity.

We are concerned. Catch and release is important. We have it in salmon, in tuna, in other fisheries. In the shark fishery we have catch and release requirements in different areas. The idea is that we're going to be able to conserve more of the resource if we catch and release and you are able to catch them again.

The challenge is that mortality rates are different for different species. With rockfish on the west coast, if you get them out of the water, they are done; it's not 100%, but there is a significant mortality rate. I don't know what it is for tuna; I know that for salmon it's quite low, so catch and release works well for salmon.

I'll ask Alain or Andrew to speak to tuna.

[Alain Vézina]

We did some research in collaboration with partners on the release mortality for tuna.

[Andrew McMaster, Assistant Director, Aquaculture Policy and Regulatory Initiatives, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

I will just elaborate a little on that P.E.I. charter fishery in regard to estimated costs; then I will touch on the mortality rate.

As Mr. Stringer has said, it's tough to pin down exactly how much is charged, but—