Fisheries Committee on May 2nd, 2012

[Tim Purdy]

I think in the last 10 years we're seeing more lamprey in southern Lake Huron than we had, say, 10 years ago.

When we fish in the wintertime, we fish probably about 25 miles north of Sarnia. We get right in the middle of the lake, so it would be pretty much straight off Bayfield or Grand Bend, right in the middle of the lake, right on the international boundary line, 130 or 150 feet of water. We would average, probably some days, just one or two, and some days four or five.

I'd say we would see 20 lampreys a week. Most of them, when they come up, try to drop off just as you're coming around the puller. Sometimes they'll fall off right there. Most times they come around the puller and the guys get them.

As for actual wounding rates, it's hard to tell. On the whitefish, it's easy to tell. You'll see where the lamprey was on there and just let go, because you have the nice circle where the lamprey was, but it just didn't quite break the skin. I don't know if they come off because we're pulling them off, but the further south you come, the less lamprey you see.

When we fish trap-nets right close to shore, Grand Bend, right down into Sarnia, you might see one lamprey every two or three weeks.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

What do you do with the lamprey you catch?

[Tim Purdy]

We used to put them in formaldehyde and ship them off to the sea lamprey control in Sault Ste. Marie. Funding was cut for that for the southern half, so now we cut them in half. We make sure they don't go back alive.

We used to put them in formaldehyde, and then they would study them to see if their reproduction organs were still in place—male, female, those are the types of things that were done.

I believe they still do that in the north; they just don't do it with the south half of the lake.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

I have 30 seconds?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

That's it. You're done. Sorry.

Patricia.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I wondered, Mr. Chair, if you would allow me to ask the committee if I could have consent to take a picture as we finish up our testimony.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Is there unanimous consent to allow for a photograph—I assume you want one of our witnesses, Ms. Davidson?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Oh, I thought it was the opposition.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Yes, I'll get you in it, too. I figured you were asking the question, so...as they're talking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Yes, as they complete their testimony.

There's unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. MacAulay, you have the floor now.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Tim, you mentioned there was something in the sport fishery. Did I hear correctly that there was some difficulty a few years ago with the sport fishery? Would you like to elaborate on that?

[Tim Purdy]

Yes. When the local club kind of got started, we had a lot of trouble with the local sport fishermen. Basically, they thought we were killing everything we caught. They didn't realize that a trap-net allows you to pick the type of fish you have. It allows you to pick the size of fish. For example, a pickerel trap-net fished right out of Sarnia, in 20 feet of water...there's a slot sized for the pickerel, and anything under 14 inches goes back alive. For the whitefish, anything under 18 inches goes back alive. With perch, anything under eight inches goes back alive.

We're allowed to pick and choose the type of fish we want. Smallmouth bass goes back alive; it's a sport fish.

The local sport club didn't realize that we were selective in the type of fish we kept. They thought we just killed everything.

When they were able to come on our boats and realize that we went by a quota system, that we didn't take all the small pickerel home, that we didn't kill everything...once they realized that, we got along very well.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

Peter, in the Fisheries Act it indicates that no person shall kill a fish unless through fishing, basically. Now, on that note, on looking at the authority the minister will have—I'm not really against ministers having authority—I'd just like you to comment on the environmental review side. It just looks to me, in this omnibus bill, that there will be less environmental review, and it will give the minister more authority, in fact, that some fish could be killed. It could be worthless fish and sea life.

I'd just like you to comment on that and the seriousness of this move.

[Peter Meisenheimer]

With the caveat that I came here to speak about Asian carp and haven't done a whole lot of prep on the changes to the Fisheries Act, I may be in error in some of my comments if I go too deeply into this.

I will say that, from what I have seen, there are changes in language that—if I properly understand what's in the act, and I haven't had a chance to actually talk to anybody at length about this from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans yet—really worry us.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I'd just like your review. If it is this way, how do you feel it will have an effect?

[Peter Meisenheimer]

It is something that worries us.

There are so many caveats I would have to append to any comment on this at this point. I don't have a detailed understanding of what's being proposed. I had one opportunity to read through a document that was provided to me on my way here on my BlackBerry last night. I caught half of a conference call this afternoon, which gave me a little bit of insight into things.

I'll be frank. I don't like some of what I'm seeing. That may or may not be an informed opinion. I don't know.

There's no question, in my mind, that the Fisheries Act is something that could use some improving. When I see some of the changes that are being proposed around habitat, when the habitat regulations have been important as they have been, I get nervous.

The sorts of questions you're putting, in terms of what's an important fish and what isn't, are certainly questions we.... One of the things we do on an ongoing basis is try to find markets for fish we catch as incidental capture that currently aren't worth anything. As it stands right now, those fish I think would be considered of no value. It's not for lack of interest in trying to find value for them, and from time to time we find value.

Perch used to go for pennies a pound in Lake Erie, when the fishery in the 1960s was predominantly for blue pike, which are now extinct. The perch were a really low-value species. Eel was the same. They used to catch them and sell them for chicken feed, as an incidental capture, in Lake Ontario. When they finally were wiped out by the seaway and the power generation on the St. Lawrence, they were worth $4 a pound in Japan.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Lobster were fed to prisoners.

[Peter Meisenheimer]

Yes, exactly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank our guests for appearing before us today and providing us with some very valuable and useful information. We certainly do appreciate it as we proceed with our study on invasive species. We do appreciate your taking time out of your busy schedules to come to join us today. On behalf of the entire committee, thank you very much.

We'll just take a very brief break, just to excuse our witnesses, and then we'll move into committee business. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chisholm, I'm going to give you the floor.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We spoke with the clerk and you earlier. There was some concerns about the original wording of the notice of motion I presented on Monday. It was agreed. We made subsequent changes.

The intent is the same, but the wording needed to be cleaned up a little bit, so we're resubmitting that notice. It would read as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans consider at the first opportunity the subject matter of the Fisheries Act and other provisions affecting federal jurisdiction over Canadian fisheries waters referred to in Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, and that the minister be requested to testify.

Thank you.