Fisheries Committee on May 17th, 2007

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gaudet.

Mr. Stoffer, you have the floor.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Cuzner, for the question of the marine fees for the far north.

As you know, Mr. Da Pont, they used to have an exemption a couple of years ago and they were tacked on, so anything that you can do with the government and the minister to remove those fees before this season I know the folks of Grise Fiord would greatly appreciate.

My other question for you, sir, is on lighthouses. As you know, Bill S-220 from the Senate is before us now, and I know my colleague is working on it as well. Obviously, there's no way you're going to divest every lighthouse to every group that's out there. Some of them are going to have to go by the wayside, but there are a fair number of them that are considered by a lot of people of national heritage importance to our country.

I'm wondering, sir, are there processes involved with DFO and the coast guard to these groups and to provinces or municipalities in terms of divestiture, not just for the cleanup of the old mercury sites and that, but to assist these groups with some basic funding in order to hand them over in a proper manner so that they can be turned over by these not-for-profit groups for historical value in the future?

[Commr George Da Pont]

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask my colleague Mr. Hegge to respond to that, because his area deals with that as part of the real property responsibilities.

[Cal Hegge]

We have a process or policy in place that allows us to divest of the lighthouses. There's a certain order of priority that we consider in terms of interest, including provincial government, municipal government, first nations and municipalities, for example, which I think is your point.

I don't have the figures at my fingertips, but we have spent money to bring these up to a certain condition before we will transfer them to a local municipality. We have a number of successful examples of where we have done that, and we will continue to look at that, of course, in the context of Bill S-220 if it becomes law.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you.

The other question is in regard to the FFMC in Manitoba. I know there are a lot of rumours going around about the future of the FFMC, and with the government's decision on the Canadian Wheat Board it only stands to reason that for those who are skeptical they would apply the same approach to the FFMC: that if farmers can market their own wheat then why can't fishermen sell their own fish or market their own fish.

I know the Government of Manitoba is concerned about that. I know in Saskatchewan there's a difference of opinion with the FFMC, and I'm just wondering if you could tell me what the current status is of the FFMC. Are there any discussions ongoing regarding changing the structure of it or just maintaining the status quo?

[Larry Murray]

Thank you very much for that question.

Although it is at arm's length from the department, the FFMC is certainly an organization the minister is very interested in. In fact he visited provinces and some of the stakeholders, and I think the debate that comes up every so often, and it came up when I was last in the department in 1997, is the debate about whether the single marketing approach is the best approach. And it's not surprising that the debate would arise now, because the same pressures are on that fishery as are on both coasts and everywhere else, rising fuels prices and so on and so forth, the high Canadian dollar.

In the context of the discussions the minister had, there was a request that in fact the FFMC have a look at dual marketing, I think in the context of some of the controversies that have been alluded to that somehow have become mixed into this. It's not the case at all. What the minister's interest is, what the president and the board of FFMC's interest is, and the stakeholders' interest is, is obviously to run the most effective organization possible. So the minister has no intention whatsoever of doing anything to eliminate or to change FFMC in any way that the president and the board of FFMC aren't interested in doing. But there is an interest out there in ensuring that it is operating to its maximum effectiveness, and there is this question about whether a dual marketing approach is feasible, viable, or whatever. It happens to coincide with the Treasury Board review of all crown corporations as well, in which we have to look at this sort of thing.

But it's a good question. The bottom line is the minister has no intention of doing anything dramatic outside the wishes of the existing board and organization there, which is running quite effectively.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank everyone for coming again today.

I'd like to talk a little bit about sport fishing, and I'll preface my comments. As I went through the estimates, I used my computer to do that and I'm going to make a brief point. I think my point is going to become fairly clear. In terms of doing a search on the word “aquaculture”, it appears 134 times in the estimates; when we look at the phrase “commercial fishery”, it appears 15 times; when you look at the phrase “recreational fishery”, it appears four times; and when you look for “sport fishing”, it appears once.

If you look on page 34, where sport fishing does appear once, it's under “Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture”, and we have quite a bit of detail there saying commercial and recreational fishing are important sources of revenue in parts of Canada, so that's one of the times that recreational fishing appears. The Atlantic fishing industry employs more than 84,000 people. Is that just in the commercial fishery, or is that in recreational fishing? That's where I'm going with this.

What I'm getting at here is we seem to have a lot of numbers talking about how many people are employed, how much value is placed in the commercial fishery, and in aquaculture, yet we talk and the last word in that first paragraph says, “Canadian sport fishing”, which is the only time it appears, “continues to inject billions of dollars into local economies each year”, but we don't seem to have any firm grasp of how many people work in fishing lodges, as fishing guides directly, not to mention the indirect value of all of this.

So when we look on page 36, which is I think what my friend Mr. Lunney was talking about earlier, we have some information there on science and support of sustainable fisheries and aquaculture and we go from $134.3 million to $130.3 million and $128.9 million over the next three years. Of course, the program enablers and human resource FTEs go down correspondingly. If that's the part in the budget that looks into the science and everything behind the sport fishing industry or any science that's done on behalf of the sport fishing industry or any FTEs that are being spent on behalf of the sport fishing and recreational fishing industry, I would like some clarification on that, because it's not taken out of there. I'm hopeful there's a lot more being done than what appears in the estimates. So could I get some clarification on that, please?

[Larry Murray]

I'll start that one and then I'll ask Mr. Stringer to wade in.

I think this is an excellent question and it is an ongoing concern in the context of the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture ministers, which includes inland and coastal provinces and all the territories. It is an ongoing debate about whether we have the right structure for the recreational fishery and so on.

One of the challenges for us in that context is that the science, the habitat work, and all that stuff is for all the fisheries. In other words, I think the provinces, particularly the inland provinces, would like to see a recreational fishery office within DFO. We probably need to figure out how to do that in a more visible way, but the real problem for us is that we think that would be a false approach, because in many ways it all comes together. I think in B.C. in particular, it really stands out, or in the west, where the value for the recreational fishing industry is huge economically. I think it's larger, and we do have some numbers we can provide the committee. Certainly we have moved chinook priority to coho. I think on the west coast there is a recognition of that. Do we have the balance right? Do we need to do more work on it? I would say probably yes.

I think on the east coast it's something with a huge, huge potential, and I think people, charter fishermen with cod, for example, are discovering they can make a lot more money with a very much smaller amount of cod by charter fishing than through a commercial fishery. So we're now working with the eastern provinces. That's one of the reasons the minister launched a recreational marine licence fee study out there. It was less to do with money and more to do with how we move the recreational fishery forward, given its tourist opportunities, which are huge. Within the Canadian Council of Fisheries and Aquaculture ministers, there has been the creation of a body to ensure we work together and share resources for funding tourism and that kind of thing.

In terms of the actual numbers, I'll ask Kevin and Michaela to say a word or two on the specifics.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Very quickly, Mr. Stringer. I know everyone has a lot of information to divulge, but we don't have much time.

[Kevin Stringer]

Very quickly, the numbers within the department are indeed rolled up in the fisheries management numbers and much of the science work. The science work on salmon is for all the different groups. In terms of the numbers, first of all, one of the reasons you may see it the way it is, as you've outlined it, is it is largely a provincial jurisdiction, and you have fish and wildlife folks in different provinces. We do work closely with them. In fact, we're engaged every five years. And we're just about finished the recreational fisheries survey, which will tell us how many fishermen there are out there in each province, what types of things, and that's public. We take the lead, but we work with the ten provinces and three territories on that.

It is a big issue on the west coast in particular, the recreational fishery, and we do have people in the department who specifically are involved in recreational fisheries management. I believe the number they use in the industry is about $600 million a year. That's what the recreational fishery on the west coast generates. And there are some 350,000 licences provided each year to recreational fishers in B.C.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Kevin Stringer]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

We'll have to pick this up on another round, Mr. Stringer. I apologize.

Mr. Boshcoff.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I represent the riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River, which of course deals with Lake Superior. My questions will relate to, first of all, sea lamprey control, not only in Lake Superior but also for really the entire Great Lakes system. It seems that sea lamprey are increasing. I would suspect that has a lot to do with the huge amounts of stocking for salmon of various species so that there's an adequate food supply.

Is more being done to address this federally? Question one.

[Larry Murray]

We have increased the funding in the last few years, working with the Americans, but Wendy actually sits on the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, so I'll ask Wendy to answer the question.

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

Yes, thank you, Deputy.

Mr. Chair, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission is aware of the increasing numbers of sea lamprey. For a time the treatments had actually been cut back. They have been increased, and we would expect that we would see the results of the increase. But at the same time, Canada and the U.S., through the commission, are working on alternative methods of sea lamprey control, and we're very hopeful that those will bear fruit.

The annual meeting of the commission is actually in three weeks in Sault Ste. Marie, and we'll be discussing this very issue.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

So you will raise the question of the adequacy of funding on both sides?

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

In terms of the funding, as the deputy mentioned, Canada did increase the amount of funding by $2 million per year, so the amount that goes into sea lamprey control is $8 million from Canada. The U.S. allocations vary a bit, but certainly that comes up at every commission meeting.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you. There are also several active conservation groups interested in restocking or helping with various species, particularly walleye, or pickerel, as it's known. It seems in Lake Superior there are a great number of barriers, like dams, that are essentially controlled by hydro or provincial domains.

What can the federal government do for organizations that want to get access or fish ladders or increase the walleye population? It seems to be becoming quite an issue in the north shore of Lake Superior.

[Larry Murray]

We do meet regularly with the province. In fact, I have meetings next Thursday afternoon, I think, with the deputy minister from Ontario, and these are the kinds of issues that come up. In specific response to your question, we do work with hydro authorities as well, but in terms of what we might do in relation to the specific question, I don't know whether Sue has any specifics, but if we don't, then we'll come back with an answer.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I would very much appreciate if you could address that question, because it seems that they can make a significant contribution to increasing the populations.

[Larry Murray]

Does anybody have a specific answer to that? I think we'll come back.