Fisheries committee  That's wonderful. It's like the stop smoking program. It took a generation, but it kicked in. It's effective today. It's the same with education; it's a long-term project. It's very hard to get educational money from RFCPP because there's more habitat work to be done. It would

Fisheries committee  That's why I said reduce the 50%. The qualification that has been driving some of the groups is that you're not allowed to put in matching federal money of any sort. It has to be non-federal money. There are not that many grants out there that we can apply for. There are some co

Fisheries committee  I don't know who brought it in for the United States, but it was in the early 1990s. It's really effective. It's cutting down on acid rain, but it hasn't stopped acid rain.

Fisheries committee  First and foremost, the program exists. DFO is back in the game of giving funding for groups to do good work. That's very important. The program must continue. Please don't cut it off with a change of government. The next thing is, it would help if the 50% matching was reduced.

Fisheries committee  I would like to see someone who goes and fishes for striped bass or mackerel from the shore on a recreational basis or from a small boat to pay a licence fee, $50 a year, $40 a year, plus a stamp on top of that. That money would then go to a habitat fund that we could draw upon t

Fisheries committee  Traditionally, the disposition rate for long-range sulphur in Nova Scotia was about 16 to 18 kilograms per hectare. After the Clean Air Act, and after a number of coal-fired plants shut down, right now the disposition rate, and it depends who you talk to, is about 12 kilograms pe

Fisheries committee  Don't forget that in Sweden and Norway, they're spending $20 million American a year, but with a five-year payback. We have 400 million fishermen who want to come here.

Fisheries committee  It's an important tool from the hatcheries. It's very important, but it's just one tool. Today's stocking, with DNA and science involved, is not hit or miss, but it does keep the resident fish DNA alive in that particular river. If used properly, it's a real thing to bring good n

Fisheries committee  DFO has to go back to sea to do more research. Also, as mentioned earlier, intercept the fisheries, both at Greenland.... St. Pierre and Miquelon does not even have a salmon river but they're allowed five tonnes, and those fish definitely would come to Nova Scotia. We need DFO, t

Fisheries committee  First of all, the DFO restoration program to bring striped bass worked. We now have increased numbers of the striped bass, and that's wonderful. In a natural system, the number of striped bass and salmon would co-exist. But the numbers of salmon are so low that they're another ex

Fisheries committee  There's acid rain. The second biggest pollutant is urbanization, particularly saltation and construction.

Fisheries committee  The biggest agriculture source on the watershed is horse farming. But the majority is urbanization and acid rain, which are wiping out the river.

Fisheries committee  I'll give you an example. If a contractor puts a culvert in a brook and it's 10 square metres, he will pay $400 times the length of the time the culvert in ground, so you're talking $40,000 per culvert, which would go to an offsetting bank credit fund. Then he's out of the way an

Fisheries committee  If I understand your question correctly, it's never been done in Nova Scotia that riparian damage has been reflected in an offsetting, for example, if you cut down a tree next to a bank. That's never been done. We use the 3:1 ratio, so if you destroy one square metre, you restore

Fisheries committee  I know that DFO is needed on the rivers. We need their guidance. We need their regulation. But DFO since the early 1990s have been cut back drastically. When is the last time you heard the public demand that a bureaucracy or government department be expanded? We need more DFO sci