Evidence of meeting #40 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 41st Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was anglers.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
All right, I'll call this meeting back to order.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your patience.
Mr. Kristianson, I believe you're going to start off with a presentation, and then Mr. Bird, you're going to finish out the time allotted.
Anytime you're ready and you want to proceed, please, the floor is yours.
Dr. Gerald Kristianson Chair, Sport Fishing Advisory Board
Fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
It's our pleasure to be here. I'm here in my capacity as chair of what's called the sport fishing advisory board in British Columbia, which is an official advisory body to Fisheries and Oceans Canada composed of both local members and organizational members, one of which is the Sport Fishing Institute, which represents the service providers to the recreational sector, such as lodges, resorts, tackle manufacturers, and so forth.
I should prop that in biographical terms. I'm a political scientist by training and was a sometime diplomat, sometime lobbyist, but I carry a business card that says— and some of you know this—“Gerry Kristianson, fisheries politician”. Since I retired from active business life 20 years ago, I've devoted my time almost exclusively to fisheries issues. I chose my title, because I believe being a politician is an honourable thing, despite what criticism there may be. While I have had some partisan activity in the past, my life is all about fisheries. At this point in my life, people who do the right things for fisheries have my support, so that's the capacity in which I'm here, and delighted to be so.
My last appearance before a fisheries committee was in a much more adversarial situation where recreational and commercial fishermen were fighting with each other, and the committee, I have to say, was almost entirely composed of members of Parliament who were only interested in commercial fishing. I'm delighted that this committee has undertaken this look at recreational fishing.
As an introductory statement, I thought it would be helpful just to refer, from our context, to the four key elements that are part of the charge of the committee. First is the economic and cultural context, of course. In the context of British Columbia, particularly the tidal fishery but also the freshwater fishery are enormously important. If you Google my name, you'll find a link to a study called “The Evolution of Recreational Salmon Fishing in British Columbia”, which I prepared for the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, and it actually does give a comprehensive look at the history.
The very first Europeans arriving in British Columbia were amazed at the fact that you could go out and catch fish for dinner, although the British were distressed that the salmon didn't take a fly like the Atlantic salmon did. We've since shown that's not true, but it is key to the British Columbia environment. The recreational fishery in British Columbia accounts for 40% of the gross domestic product value of all fisheries in British Columbia, including aquaculture. Based on 10% of the salmon harvest and 15% of the halibut harvest, we account for 40% of all the economic value of fisheries. I think that speaks for itself in importance.
In terms of participation, I'm here representing 300,000 tidal water anglers, who each year buy licences to go fishing. I don't represent the freshwater anglers directly, but there is another equally large number of people interested in recreational fishing. In our case, the SFAB, I represent 24 local committees and two regional committees, and a main board. We have a bottom-up process by which we give advice to government on the importance and needs of the recreational fishery.
In terms of management of fish stocks, which is another of the items you've highlighted, I have to say in our case, because the department is often maligned, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans deserves a gold star for its consultation process on the west coast. The reality is that within the sport fishing advisory board process, but also the commercial, and a series of other bodies like the integrated harvest planning committee, the halibut advisory board, no angler, commercial fisherman, or environmentalist can complain that they don't have an opportunity for consultation with DFO. Does everybody get what they want? Of course, not. But the fact is that it is a process that is well established and has worked under different governments, continues to work, and it is one that I applaud in my capacity.
I should add the SFAB is entirely a voluntary process; none of us are compensated for what we do. We get expenses covered when we travel to meetings and so forth, but we volunteer our time because we believe in the recreational fishery.
On the final of the four points in the charge of the committee, the potential to improve recreational fishing, I wanted to highlight an issue that I would hope your committee will embrace and include in your report. The fishery in British Columbia, between ourselves, Fisheries and Oceans, and the provincial government, developed a recreational fisheries vision. I have a copy of the document here. It's in both official languages and it's a DFO document. The copy I have is only in English but you can obtain it in both languages. It's called “Guiding a collaborative vision: a vibrant & sustainable recreational fishery in BC”. We think it's a landmark agreement between private interests and government on what recreational fishing is all about. The challenge, of course, is to turn a policy document into reality.
We have, as of late January, presented to Minister Shea what we're calling the recreational fisheries vision implementation initiative. It's a request to the department for dedicated program development to advance recreational fisheries in the west coast context. We've costed it at about $2.5 million per year for five years. We think it would add dramatically to the value, the involvement, all of the things that make the recreational fishery important. Again, because I was only invited to appear before the committee late last week, I do not have the document in both official languages but it's an official document in the sense that it's part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' files. I will leave a my copy in English with the committee to deal with as it wishes.
Our hope was, frankly, to have this program approved by government in the near term. It has costs associated with it, but I have to tell you that we have suggested that we think the recreational fishing licence in British Columbia, the tidal water licence, is highly undervalued. I should tell you that as a senior citizen for $17.85 a year I get access to all of the marine resources of tidal waters in British Columbia. It's the best bargain anyone could ever hope for. Owen pays more because he has to pay $28 because he's not a senior citizen, but we think that anglers are actually prepared to help share these costs with government. We think that's the right approach.
Unfortunately, we have been unable to move forward much on that because of something that many may be aware of called the User Fees Act. The User Fees Act was a private member's bill but it's the adopted law of Canada and has become an impediment to changing user fees. It's frustrating to us that we want to have our participants pay more for the benefits they get from the things they harvest from the ocean but we haven't been able to move there.
I'll leave you with that. We think that it would be—if this committee were to give its support to the initiative—a big boost in making sure that this particular direction moves forward in the near future.
With that I'll turn the microphone over to Owen, who is the executive director of the Sport Fishing Institute.
Owen Bird Executive Director, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
Thanks very much for the opportunity to speak to the committee. I will be brief, as I think Gerry covered it fairly concisely. I'll just add a couple of points regarding the genesis of the initiative, the proposal that Gerry and the SFAB have put forward and that we're optimistic will be accepted.
It's a creation not only of our trying to see how we can elevate licence prices in order to help facilitate work that is, as we understand from working with DFO collaboratively over the years, not quite desperately required but I'd say critically required to ensure that we can carry on with a sustainable recreational fishery, particularly in tidal waters. A number of programs that are operating now provide really excellent information about the recreational fishery regarding catch monitoring, the collection of data about recreational catch.
As it stands now, we aren't able, and DFO isn't able, to do everything that's required to paint a good picture of recreational fishing in B.C. We have some excellent information, some good historical information, but it could be improved upon. This could help enhance the opportunities that are available to the recreational fishery. It would also help defray any objection from other sectors that may believe we are harvesting more fish than we believe we are.
We have a very diverse and rich history of fisheries in B.C., in tidal waters particularly. We keep saying, as Gerry pointed out, that a very active freshwater community enjoys very significant benefits in terms of the B.C. economy, but we're talking about salt water here. What we're keen to do here in a lot of respects is to make clear the social and economic benefits of recreational fisheries—not to say that they are greater than commercial or first nations interests in fisheries in B.C., but just to treat them in a commensurate fashion. The funding dedicated to recreational fisheries management is very low in comparison with what's provided to commercial and first nations fisheries. The hope here is to not only have the strategy approved and to move forward and provide the funding, but also, as I said, to point out the values, both social and economic, and to allow us to do the things we can do to enhance and just provide better opportunities for recreational fishing in British Columbia.
I think I'll leave it at that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Thank you very much, Mr. Bird and Mr. Kristianson.
We'll go to a 10-minute round, starting with Mr. Chisholm.
NDP
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much, folks, for being here, the three of you. As a member of this committee, I can't tell you how disappointed I am that this hearing has been interrupted and that we're not going to have as much time as we need to discuss the important work that you and your organizations do in your respective jurisdictions.
I asked a couple of questions of Mr. Farrant and I left off with one, but I'm going to leave it unanswered, because I only have a couple of minutes and I'm going to try to squeeze in my colleagues here for questions.
Mr. Kristianson, you mentioned that the last time you were before the committee there was a huge tussle going on between the commercial and the recreational fishery over quota allocation.
What I'd like to say is that I don't think there's any member on this committee who doesn't recognize what an important place the recreational fishery has. You've already talked about its economic value being 40%; however, we have to find a way to have discussions to sort out how best to allocate the resource. I would very much like to see those happen more often.
I want to ask you, though, a question about something that's happening in other jurisdictions around habitat protection and restoration. DFO has the authority to impose offsets when there is damage to fish habitat as a result of development, whether from culverts or other types of developments, in rivers in particular and on the coastline. In some jurisdictions, their tenacity in enforcing that authority has dropped. The offset used to be 3:1, and it has now dropped down to 1:1 in many cases.
It's an incredibly important source of funding for some organizations to help repair damage done to fish habitat.
I'd like your comment on that, Mr. Bird and Mr. Kristianson, from your experience in British Columbia.
Chair, Sport Fishing Advisory Board
Thank you.
I have to say at the outset that I'm not an expert on that side of the fishery; however, I am of course very familiar with the “no net loss” policy of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I've been involved in a couple of projects—one in particular—to try to prove out closed-containment salmon farming, a successful project helped by government. I vividly remember that we had to spend a lot of money replanting eelgrass so that the shadow cast by our device was not reducing the productivity of the seabed.
Obviously, I support that approach to things. I think you need to do that, but I have to confess that I can't speak with any authority. In our case, the people who could best answer that sort of question would be someone from the Pacific Salmon Foundation, for example, which, funded by money from the licence fee—in this case, the salmon stamp part of the licence fee—undertakes rehabilitation projects in cooperation with government and private people.
NDP
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you.
Does Mr. Bird have anything specifically to add on that?
Executive Director, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia
I don't think I could add. I think the Pacific Salmon Foundation is probably a good suggestion.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Welcome to our witnesses. I have two questions. I'm going to put them both out there and then I'll leave it, because I'm going to move on to my counterpart here. We have only limited time.
The first question is for Mr. Farrant.
You mentioned in your opening remarks, Mr. Farrant, an 11.3% increase in fishing licences in Ontario between 2005 and 2010. In other words, 300,000 more Canadians were fishing over that period of time. That would create, I should think, an increased pressure on recreational fish stocks—that, combined with politics. Science is one thing, but often, as you point out in your remarks, the politics overrides the science.
When you combine the increased pressure on the stock with politics overriding science, basically, where does that leave the stocks and fear for how well they're doing? Maybe both groups could answer that.
The other question I have is for you, Mr. Kristianson.
I'm from Newfoundland and Labrador. When it comes to our recreational cod fishery, for example, also known as the food fishery, there are no licences. You're not charged. There are limitations—five fish a day and that sort of thing—but no charge.
Can you elaborate on how the $17 fishing licence works and what stocks it covers—what fish you can fish with it? Is it good for the whole season? Is there a catch limit? I'm asking about those sorts of things.
Thank you.
Manager, Government Affairs and Policy, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
Thank you for the question; I appreciate it. I'll address your first part, obviously.
Sure, you would think that increasing the number of recreational anglers would, quid pro quo, put pressure on the resources. Obviously fish and wildlife management are managed on the basis of science, on the basis of populations and of a whole bunch of complicated factors that biologists at the Ministry of Natural Resources undertake to manage in every one of those resources.
What our problem is in Ontario—and I'll speak specifically to Ontario—is that we see a tendency, in terms of both fishing and hunting, for the government's answer concerning regulating the sustainable use of any particular species to be always to look at the recreational sector. When a species becomes a little bit dodgy, the first thing they do is cut tags, quotas, licences for recreational fishing or recreational hunting.
This is going on in Ontario on both fronts right now. On Lake Nipissing, which is one of the biggest tourism walleye fisheries in Canada, the recreational tags have been cut back so that people now are down to two fish, and the slot sizes are so ridiculous—
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Ferrant, but that's not the question I asked. I appreciate the point you're making about going after quota cuts between recreational and commercial fisherman; I understand that. But my question concerns the delicate balance between science and the politics—the decision-making—and whether or not there is a fear, at the end of the day, for the state of the stock.
Manager, Government Affairs and Policy, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
Well, the politics dictates that recreational anglers are the targets. The politics does not dictate that commercial fishing—in particular unregulated commercial harvest—is a target in Ontario. That's where the pressure on the resource is, and that's a political decision that governments are unwilling to take thus far.
Chair, Sport Fishing Advisory Board
Let me offer a brief comment on that side of things. The way we try to deal in British Columbia with those issues is that—again, in tribute to DFO—the consultative process.... Last week I was in a process aimed at rehabilitating chinook salmon in southern British Columbia. I was there alongside representatives of the commercial sector and representatives of the environmental sector, and decisions generally were being reached by consensus in an effort to ensure that you're not playing off the interests of the total fish against the interests of individual groups of harvesters.
It's the same as with the mention of quota earlier. These adversarial quota fights aren't happening in British Columbia, with one exception that I can come back to later. Recently, because we went through a period when we developed, in the case of salmon, an allocation policy—which all of us signed off on, literally—we negotiated an agreement such that recreational and commercial fisherman felt they were getting their fair share, from the way in which the fish were being allocated.
On the second part of the question—limits—you pay for your annual tidal waters licence. That gives you access to tidal waters for a 12-month period commencing April 1—it's the government's fiscal year. You can then fish for all of the species that are available for harvest. The limits you can take are carefully dictated. In chinook salmon, it's a maximum of two a day, and four in your total possession—
NDP
Chair, Sport Fishing Advisory Board
This is fishing in tidal waters, either from a boat or from shore.
NDP
Chair, Sport Fishing Advisory Board
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in the British Columbia case, regulates only fisheries in tidal waters. That is where the tide affects it, so it's in the ocean plus the Fraser River up to the point where salt water meets fresh water and the rise and fall of the tide. The federal government gave British Columbia the jurisdiction over the fisheries in fresh water.
Chair, Sport Fishing Advisory Board
Absolutely. You may not be able to keep all species for 12 months. In the case of halibut our allocation of 15% has meant that we've actually reduced what individuals can keep at a limit of six halibut per year, for example, in order to ensure that the fishery does stay open all year without exceeding our quota allocation.
Conservative
Conservative
Robert Sopuck Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB
Thank you.
The numbers for British Columbia tidewater fisheries are truly remarkable. You only harvest 10% of the salmon, yet you're 49% of the GDP created from all fisheries. I think that's a remarkable number. I can see your point about governments needing to pay more attention, the federal government especially, to the recreational fishing. I hope you're taking the fact that this committee is undertaking the very first study of recreational fishing ever to mean that the process has begun in a very serious way.
I'd like to ask both Ontario and B.C., what is your wish list from the federal government in terms of programming for recreational fishing? What do you want to see out there on the ground for actual programming?
Mr. Farrant.
Manager, Government Affairs and Policy, Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters
In a word, the continuation of the recreational conservation partnerships program. As I said in my remarks, it's been an overwhelming success. It allows hundreds of on-the-ground projects to be done in local communities across this country, from coast to coast to coast. Expansion, enhancement, and permanency of that program would be our ideal situation.
Conservative
Chair, Sport Fishing Advisory Board
In our case, our immediate and urgent need is for the program that we have put to the government for the implementation of the vision that we've all agreed to. This would mean that we would have more resources to make sure that we pass the red-face test on catch monitoring; to make sure that where additional hatchery activity with chinook and coho can take place, that money is available for it and that we're sharing in that; and to continue the consultative process.
I don't want to belabour this but the fact is that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans spends a lot of money on consulting and that's important to us and we want to be able to ensure that consultation continues to take place. We don't want to be in the situation where we're not part of the game. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but at least you're being listened to. Frankly I would hope that in the future the House of Commons fisheries committee continues to be interested in recreational fishing.