FISH Committee Report
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
- MANITOBA
- A. THE FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING CORPORATION
- B. FISHERIES
- C. CANADIAN COAST GUARD
- D. SMALL CRAFT HARBOURS AND DREDGING
- E. FIRST NATIONS AND METIS
- ONTARIO
- THE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS
- SCIENCE
FRESHWATER FISHERIES
As part of its on-going study of Canadian fisheries, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans visited nine communities in Manitoba and Ontario from the 4th to the 8th of May 1998 to study issues related to the management of Canada's freshwater fisheries. The Committee also visited the headquarters of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in Transcona, an area of Winnipeg.
Although the Committee found that there were a number of issues in common between Manitoba and Ontario, priorities varied from region to region. Manitoba and Ontario are therefore discussed in separate sections.
MANITOBA
A. THE FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING CORPORATION
1. Background
In the communities visited by the Committee in Manitoba, the most contentious issue was the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation (FFMC). The Corporation was created in 1969 by the enactment of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act. It was intended to provide a single-desk selling agency to increase the selling power of the many small and isolated producers of the Prairie Provinces, the Northwest Territories and a portion of northwestern Ontario. The mandate of this new agency was to counter the domination of a relatively small number of buyers in the largely U.S. market and to increase financial returns to the fishermen. The Corporation now has sales in excess of $40 million1 a year.
The Committee found strongly polarized views on whether the FFMC was fulfilling its mandate to improve financial returns to the fishermen. To a great extent, differences were split along north-south lines. The Committee found that the greater the distance of a producer from the FFMC's headquarters in Winnipeg, the more likely he or she was to be critical of the FFMC.
2. Single-Desk Selling
In The Pas and Grand Rapids, where the Committee also heard representation from the Saskatchewan Commercial Fisherman's Co-operative Federation Ltd., the assessment of the Corporation was uniformly negative. Fishermen in these communities told the Committee that they are now worse off than they had been before the Corporation had been created. The fundamental issue for these fishermen is that, under the FFMC's monopoly, they cannot make a living through commercial fishing because the prices that the Corporation pays them for their fish are too low when compared to their costs. Because they are unable to make a living from fishing, the majority of northern fishermen want to be able to opt out of the FFMC. They feel that they have nothing to lose and, on their own, might at least have a better chance of making a living. As one witness said "If we fail, we have lost nothing." No one was in favour of dismantling the Corporation. Instead, most preferred a dual marketing system where the Corporation would remain for those who wanted to sell their fish through the Corporation.
In the southern communities, particularly in Gimli, the view was entirely the reverse. A number of fishermen there told the Committee that they could recall being at the mercy of the fish buyers before the Corporation was formed, when the buyers could pit one fisherman against another in order to get the lowest price. One fisherman said that he had initially been against the Corporation but that he was now a strong supporter. Southern fishermen expressed the view that the real problem of the northern fishermen was not the Corporation but rather the higher costs for the northern fishermen due to their distance from markets. These costs included higher operating expenses for fishing, along with greater transportation costs. In some situations, relatively small volumes of product also contributed to a lack of profitability. Fishermen in the south were against allowing the option of "opting out," as they felt that this would undermine the Corporation and ultimately lead to its demise. They also indicated that disbanding the Corporation would actually hurt fishermen in the north more than those in the south and it would not alone solve their problems. On the other hand, fishermen in the south said they would be better able to survive without the Corporation because of their closer proximity to markets and larger volumes of fish.
In addition to differences on the fundamental issue of the Corporation's monopoly, northern fishermen voiced a number of other criticisms of the Corporation. These included marketing effort, product quality, centralized processing, efficiency and representation.
3. Marketing and Value-added Processing
Fishermen in the north told the Committee that while the Corporation does a good job of marketing pickerel, it does not do a very good job of marketing whitefish and does poorly marketing so-called "rough fish." They also contend that because pickerel is in high demand it is easy to market. The prices paid by the Corporation for rough fish are often lower than the cost of shipping them to the plant at Transcona. This has led to the practice of "bushing," in other words dumping the unprofitable species of fish on the shore. While fishermen do not like this practice, they have little choice. Many northern fishermen feel that conditions have changed since the FFMC was created and, because of better communications and greater knowledge on the part of the fishermen, they now would be able to do a better job of marketing the fish themselves. One witness was particularly critical of the quality of the FFMC's display at a recent International Boston Seafood Show.
Northern fishermen claimed that the FFMC has not been very diligent either in finding new markets or in developing new products, especially for rough fish. The Corporation responded by saying that this is not the case. In the 1996-97 season, the FFMC found markets for a record volume of almost 11 million pounds of mullet, one of the principal species of rough fish. In addition, more intensive market research and product development would require extensive funding which could potentially reduce the returns to fishermen, contrary to the mandate of the Corporation.
4. Centralized Processing
The FFMC has consolidated all of its processing operations into a single, large, highly efficient plant at Transcona in an effort to improve the profitability of its operation, thus fulfilling its mandate to maximize the earnings of fishermen.
Northern fishermen, however, complained that the Corporation's centralized processing disadvantages them in a number of ways. Furthermore they argued that consolidation was not part of the Corporation's original mandate, which was to combine only the marketing of freshwater fish through a single-desk agency.
Witnesses told the Committee that centralization has meant the loss of processing jobs in northern communities. Northern fishermen are aware that not every area could support a processing operation; however, they point out that before the Corporation was created there were successful processing plants in the north. A modern plant constructed by the Province of Manitoba at Leaf Rapids, completed just before FFMC was established, never went into operation. Members from the Northwest Co-operative Fisheries Ltd. described their plan to reopen the plant. They estimated that by doing so, they could increase incomes to their producers by more than $500,000 annually.
During the time needed for shipping to the Transcona plant, there may be significant deterioration of the product. Fishermen in the north believe that more regional processing would result in higher quality. Another contentious issue over which fishermen have no control is deterioration during shipping that results in fish being rejected by the Corporation. Some witnesses pointed out that quality is affected not just by the transportation time but also by the time needed to collect a sufficient quantity of fish for shipping, which tends to be a problem for small producers.
5. Representation
Northern fishermen who are predominantly First Nations and Metis say that they make up about 75% to 80% of the FFMC's clients but that they are not proportionately represented on the Board of Directors of the Corporation. Southern fishermen counter this argument, saying that one should look not just at the numbers of fishermen, but at their volume of production. In fact, according to the Corporation, five members of the Board are First Nations or Metis.
A witness speaking on behalf of the Manitoba Metis Federation criticized the lack of involvement of the FFMC with Metis fishermen and recommended the formation of a constructive partnership between the Corporation and the Metis who, he said, make up about 75% of the inland fishermen in the province. He said that the FFMC control of markets does not work in the best interests of the Metis and that the FFMC discourages the Metis from attempting to find markets for rough fish. He criticized the FFMC for not working closely enough with the province to take action against the causes of declining pickerel stocks and combat unlawful fishing practices.
The Chairman of the Board disagreed with these criticisms. Those members of the Board who were present at the meeting indicated that they would have no objection to an elected Board of Directors.
Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada introduce legislation to amend the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act to provide for the election of the Board of Directors of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation (FFMC) as opposed to its current appointed status. The Committee further recommends that the Board of Directors be consulted as to the suitability of prospective candidates for appointment to the Presidency of the FFMC.
6. Advisory Committee
One of the issues brought to the attention of the Committee was an amendment to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act, which would allow the election of the members of the FFMC Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee currently consists of up to 15 members who are appointed by the Governor in Council for terms of five years to advise the Corporation. The amendment, which was proposed in Bill C-49, died on the Order Paper at the end of the 35th Parliament. Witnesses advised that the proposed change should be reintroduced as soon as possible.
7. Appointment of the President
The lack of cooperation between the Board and the recently appointed President of the Corporation, Mr. Ron Fewchuk, gives cause for concern about the direction currently being provided to the Corporation.
During the Committee's meeting in The Pas, and earlier hearings in Ottawa, the Committee heard expressions of support for Mr. Fewchuk, who was commended for his willingness to work with fishermen. In The Pas, some witnesses questioned why the services of Mr. Tom Dunn, the former President of the Corporation, were being retained at the expense of the fishermen. In Gimli, however, the Committee also heard expressions of support for Mr. Dunn, who was said to have done an outstanding job of running the Corporation. The Chairman of the Board, representing board members from the provinces, supported Mr. Dunn and wanted Mr. Fewchuk removed.
Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans take immediate action to resolve the dispute between the President and the Board of Directors of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
8. Island Lake Fishermen's Co-op
The Committee heard from a representative of the Island Lake Fishermen's Co-op. Following the 1995 report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the Island Lake Fishermen's Co-op was granted a 3-year exemption from the monopoly of the FFMC. The Co-op reported that it has invested over $1 million in a processing plant located at Garden Hill. Since the exemption, the Co-op claims it has created more than 40 full-time jobs and work for 100 fishermen. The Co-op claims to buy all species of fish from their fishermen whereas it claims that the FFMC will only purchase pickerel. The Co-op also claims that it has been successful in finding markets for its products, including rough fish. In the previous year, more than 90% of the catch was exported to the U.S. The Co-op said that it was able to break even in its second year of operation and expected to be profitable in the future; however, the Co-op was having difficulty obtaining financing due to the approaching end of the 3-year exemption and was therefore seeking a permanent exemption.
Other witnesses indicated that the performance of the Island Lake Fishermen's Co-op should be evaluated carefully. They questioned whether it had in fact been profitable, as the Co-op had received funding of $600,000 from Human Resources Development Canada. Assertions were also made that the Island Lake Fishermen's Co-op was not only competing in markets established by the FFMC by undercutting the FFMC's prices, but that the Co-op was paying lower prices to its fishermen than they would have received from the FFMC.
9. Alternatives
While most northern witnesses were in favour of abandoning the single-desk monopoly of the FFMC, they wanted to see the FFMC remain as a voluntary co-operative for those fishermen who wished to sell through the Corporation. They believed in their own ability to process and market their fish, to develop new value-added products and new markets. After all, as they said, they had nothing to lose if they failed. Representatives of aboriginal fishermen also asserted that they had constitutional and treaty rights that gave them the right to market fish independently of the Corporation. Moreover, they added that they had not been consulted when the Corporation had been created.
In the south, the predominant view was that single-desk marketing gave the fishermen the highest return and that there was no middle ground for a dual marketing system. One difficulty was determining where to draw the line. Allowing some groups to market their product outside the Corporation would inevitably result in competition with the Corporation that would ultimately lead to lower prices or its demise. They argued that the Corporation had the support of a majority of commercial fishermen and should not be dismantled for the benefit of a relatively small number of dissidents. Some witnesses noted that some of the Corporation's critics were not in fact commercial fishermen.
Southern fishermen did not view processing at other locations as a viable option. Maintaining the efficiency of scale at Transcona requires a substantial throughput of fish. Reducing throughput to supply other plants would result in higher overheads at Transcona and therefore decrease the financial returns to fishermen.
Most southern fishermen felt that the most viable option to help northern producers would be to reintroduce freight subsidies like the Federal Northern Transportation Subsidy. A substantial number of northern fishermen also supported freight subsidies.
The ad hoc committee of former Regional Directors General of DFO, Central & Arctic Region, pointed out that there have been a great many reports written on the FFMC, the vast majority of which support its continuation. They recommended that previous reports should be reviewed before making any changes to the structure and operation of the Corporation. They also pointed out that the provincial governments were partners in the creation of the Corporation and would have to be fully involved in any changes.
Recommendation 3
The Committee recommends that, before considering any changes to the FFMC's marketing monopoly, a thorough analysis be done on the Island Lake Fishermen's Co-op report due in 1998, as well as of the FFMC as a whole.
1. Status of Fisheries
In a number of locations, the Committee heard concerns about the long-term sustainability of Canada's freshwater fisheries. In The Pas, for example, fishermen expressed concern over the decline of northern fisheries. In Grand Rapids, fishermen also reported that the fishery in the North Basin of Lake Winnipeg was in decline. Overfishing, environmental degradation, loss of prime spawning habitat, and predators were all factors. Some testimony regarding the status of stocks was contradictory. One group contended that goldeye populations were in serious decline in several Manitoba lakes. Other witnesses disagreed, although they observed that the goldeye were smaller.
In Selkirk a witness pointed out that although freshwater fish stocks are managed by the provinces, sustainability of those fish stocks is still ultimately the responsibility of the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Recommendation 4
The Committee recommends that more funds be allocated to scientific research in the Central and Arctic Regions.
Concerns were also expressed over the impact of declining provincial budgets on stock monitoring. As a result, the level of monitoring was insufficient to adequately determine the status of stocks. Many fishermen also felt that more effort and funding should be put into the enhancement of stocks, to increasing the number of hatcheries and to improving their quality of operation. Commercial fishermen were concerned about the priority given to stocking lakes for sports fishing. In The Pas, a request was made to the Committee for a stocking program for Rocky Lake.
In The Pas, the Committee was told about the problems caused by large numbers of"crow ducks" (cormorants) on Lake Winnipegosis and Lake Manitoba. The population of cormorants now numbers in the millions. When the cormorants are raising their young, each cormorant consumes about three pounds of fish a day. They are believed to have more impact on fish stocks than commercial and sports fishing combined. Witnesses said that the Province of Manitoba has provided $20,000 to initiate a cormorant study and has since asked for matching federal support.
Recommendation 5
The Committee recommends that the federal government immediately fund a research study on the effects that high cormorant populations have on fish stocks in the Central Region.
2. Habitat
One of the most widespread concerns brought before the Committee, raised in virtually every community that it visited, was the destruction of critical fish habitat and the greater need for its protection.
The construction of dams by Manitoba Hydro for hydro development on major waterways and their impact on fish habitat and fish populations was perceived as a major factor in the decline of pickerel stocks in the North Basin of Lake Winnipeg. Hydro development had also caused mercury contamination of fish. The effects of dams and pollution adversely impacted spawning streams. As a result of the neglect of fish habitat, witnesses said there was a need for the rehabilitation and revitalization of fish habitat in the Saskatchewan River, Moose Lake, Cedar Lake and Grand Rapids Region.
Witnesses criticized the failure of both the Manitoba and federal governments to protect fish habitat from logging activities in the province. They also stated that Section 35 of the Fisheries Act, which legislates the protection of fish habitat, should not be off-loaded to the provinces.
In Gimli, witnesses told the Committee that the water of Lake Winnipeg has been maintained at artificially high levels for the Manitoba Hydro Jenpeg generating station. This has caused accelerated erosion of the shoreline, reduced available farmland and may have negatively impacted on waterfowl. They recommended reducing the average water level of the Lake.
3. Financial Issues
Other issues raised by witnesses included changes to Employment Insurance (EI) regulations that prevented fishermen from including insurable earnings from other employment with fishing-related earnings in order to qualify for EI. There was also discussion of the fact that EI regulations did not recognize that fishing has three seasons, not two. Recommendations made to the Committee were that the $500,000 capital gains exemption available to farmers also be made available to fishermen and that there should be a Net Income Stabilization Account (NISA) program for fishermen.
Fishermen in Gimli felt that management of the freshwater fisheries has suffered because of a lack of coordination and poor communication with fishermen. This has happened because of the many levels of government, government departments and crown corporations involved in the fishery. They suggested the creation of a committee to coordinate the activities of various governments and departments related to freshwater fisheries.
Many witnesses expressed concern over the cutbacks to the Coast Guard in Selkirk and the possible closure of that base. The Coast Guard facility in Selkirk was recently built at a cost of $2 million. Services have now been moved from Selkirk and the building has since been leased out.
Lake Winnipeg is the 11th largest lake in the world. It is a shallow body of water that can turn very dangerous very quickly. In addition to supporting large commercial and sports fisheries, it is also used by many visitors and residents for water-related leisure activities. The rumoured closure of the Selkirk Coast Guard Base and the possible discontinuation of Search and Rescue services on Lake Winnipeg were major concerns for many witnesses from the area. A continued Coast Guard presence on Lake Winnipeg was viewed as critical as it is the only organization equipped to deal with many emergency situations.
A representative of the Gimli Detachment of the RCMP pointed out that due to lack of manpower, training and equipment, the detachment could not currently provide an effective Search and Rescue capability. Members of the detachment were willing to do what they could; however, they would not put their own lives at risk. He also noted that their mandate was unclear.
Recommendation 6
The Committee recommends that the Canadian Coast Guard base in Selkirk, Manitoba, remain operational and capable of supplying the full range of services required of the Coast Guard in the Province of Manitoba.
The Committee was told that, as a result of cuts to the Coast Guard's budget, the placement, retrieval and maintenance of navigational aids is now being contracted out to private enterprise. Contracts are handled through the Coast Guard's Sarnia office. Concern was expressed over the integrity of the tendering process and whether contracts were being monitored effectively to ensure that the contractors were fulfilling their responsibilities. Lack of proper monitoring could lead to an unsafe situation. The Committee was told that commercial fishermen are concerned about the removal of navigation lights, which are essential for safe travel at night. It was also pointed out that there is no differential global positioning system (DGPS) on Lake Winnipeg and basic global positioning system (GPS) is not sufficiently accurate for the placement of buoys. One witness suggested that the system is reverting back to a state similar to that in the 1960s without saving the taxpayer much money.
The Committee heard from a retired Coast Guard employee of 32 years who testified that DFO's contracting out of aids to navigation has not worked well. He warned the Committee that "there is substantial potential for a marine disaster because the contractors have no experience, whereas former DFO staff were required to have ten years of experience." He also cautioned that contractors may need to be bonded.
Recommendation 7
The Committee recommends that DFO establish a thorough training program for contractors, requiring them to pass standard knowledge and skills testing criteria.
Another area of concern was flood control. It was pointed out that the Coast Guard has the best-trained personnel in Manitoba to deal with flood control and that it is the only organization equipped to deal with certain kinds of situations. The question was asked: Who would assume responsibility for future Flood Response Assistance if there was no longer a Coast Guard presence on the Red River? The issue was also raised as to who would assume responsibility for enforcement of the Navigable Waters Protection Act in the event of the closure of the Selkirk base.
A witness in Selkirk raised a related issue. A swing bridge across the Red River in Winnipeg, previously owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) was impeding navigation on the Red River as a result of having been welded closed, contrary to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The witness asked whether the CPR or the present owner was responsible for the bridge.
The federal government has recently introduced new regulations governing the use of watercraft. Witnesses were concerned that the Coast Guard would not enforce these regulations. The town of Selkirk was afraid that responsibility for enforcement of these federal regulations would fall to the town and, as a result, would require working hours that they were not prepared to provide.
The town of Selkirk expressed concern that the responsibility for marine emergencies and environmental response could become the responsibility of the local government authority. The Mayor pointed out that the town does not have the equipment or sufficiently trained personnel to respond effectively to an environmental incident on the Red River. If the Canadian Coast Guard divests itself of the responsibility for emergency environmental response along the Red River and Lake Winnipeg, it will be necessary to ensure that some level of government has the capability of responding to an environmental incident. The town of Selkirk maintains that this cost could not be borne by the town and that it should not be off-loaded to any municipal authority without prior discussion and a long-term financial commitment for equipment, material and training.
D. SMALL CRAFT HARBOURS AND DREDGING
The Department of Fisheries and Ocean's divestiture of small craft harbours was a major issue for many of the witnesses who appeared before the Committee both in Manitoba and in Ontario's Great Lakes Region. Many witnesses felt that the maintenance of small craft harbours was an important part of the transportation infrastructure, similar to roads and airports. On the eastern shore of Lake Winnipeg, small craft harbours are essential as there is no road to service this area.
Witnesses agreed that it was not possible to keep all small harbours open especially where the number of people using them did not warrant it. A major problem for the harbour authorities, taking over responsibility for small craft harbours from DFO, was that they did not have the resources to bring the harbours up to the necessary state of repair nor did the harbours have the potential to generate the revenues to pay for the repairs. They felt that the harbours should be brought up to standard by DFO before being turned over to local authorities.
The town of Gimli was seeking clarification of DFO's policy with respect to divestiture of small craft harbours. The town had wanted to expand its harbour in time for the 1999 Pan-Am Games. Expansion of the harbour to provide more efficient facilities for the fishing industry and more room for recreational boaters would have enhanced its role in the economic development of the region. Despite support from the town and the province, plans to improve the facility were put on hold while the federal government was in the process of trying to find a new owner.
Dredging is important to keep many of the harbours on Lake Winnipeg accessible. Many of the Lake Winnipeg small harbours have to be dredged every four to five years. Dredging is also important to keep the Red River open for navigation. It was pointed out that discontinuing dredging would effectively shut down Lake Winnipeg. In Selkirk the interdependence of the dry dock and dredging was highlighted. Dredging is required to keep the dry dock clear and the dry dock is needed for required periodic inspection and maintenance of the dredgers. There had been a proposal to turn the dry dock over to the town of Selkirk, but the town was reluctant to take on the responsibility.
One witness complained about cost recovery, particularly the cost of wharfage. He disagreed with the concept of user pay on the basis that it was not the real end-user who would pay for the wharfage.
One witness explained, "Canada is abandoning us. Canada was built on the concept of government providing infrastructure and now we have user fees." He testified that, for example, wharfage and berthage fees had increased four times, from $1,400 to $6,800.
Recommendation 8
The Committee recommends that the government conduct a full review of the cumulative impact of cost recovery by an independent auditor, and that the Government of Canada consider removing this crippling policy.
During the Committee's meetings on freshwater fisheries, a number of groups representing First Nations and the Metis made representations. In northern Manitoba, most of the issues concerned the relationship between the FFMC and native peoples, but First Nations representatives also brought forward a number of other issues.
In The Pas the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak (MKO) pointed to Canada's failure to honour its responsibilities to First Nations and to Canada's duty to consider the interests of First Nations. They asserted that treaties between Her Majesty and the MKO First Nations confirmed their right to fish not only for traditional and ceremonial purposes, but also for commercial purposes.
In Selkirk, a witness suggested that native people should be more involved in the Coast Guard and that some of the Coast Guard functions could be moved to smaller communities. It was also suggested that training should be provided for young native people who want to learn to fish.
In The Pas, the Opaskwayak and Moose Lake fishermen argued that although First Nations fishermen make up 85% of the fishermen on Lake Winnipeg, they are allowed to fish only along the shoreline of Lake Winnipeg, amounting to only 15% of the Lake. The remainder of the Lake, they alleged, was allocated to a small group of 12 fishermen from Gimli.
ONTARIO
1. Introduction
Ontario's Great Lakes commercial fishery is one of the largest freshwater fisheries in the world. It has an average annual landed value of over $40 million and an overall impact on the Ontario and Canadian economies of $250 million, and possibly as much as $500 million. Ninety percent of production is exported, bringing in new dollars. In addition, the Great Lakes support the largest freshwater sports fisheries in the world. In Ontario alone, 800,000 people a year sports fish on the Great Lakes, contributing $850 million to the economy. The sports and commercial fisheries combined generate over 20,000 person years of employment per year.
Given the economic significance of the freshwater fisheries, the rapidly changing ecology of the Great Lakes and the fact that they are international waters falling under federal responsibility, stakeholders asked why DFO invests so little of its resources in the Great Lakes.
2. Funding for Great Lakes Programs
The Ontario Commercial Fisheries Association (OCFA) estimated that Ontario taxpayers support over 42% of DFO's overall budget; however, less than 2% of DFO's budget for fisheries programs is allocated back to Ontario. The same group also questioned the relatively small amount of funding allocated for small craft harbours, associated with commercial fishing, compared to recreational and coastal fishing harbours.
The OCFA claims that less than 2% of DFO's total expenditures in science and research is directed toward fisheries work on the Great Lakes. DFO research is critical to understanding nutrient levels required to support good fisheries, the impact of exotic species, to measuring the effects of toxic chemicals, and to setting targets for the reduction of acid rain. The OCFA recommended that DFO maintain its responsibilities for Great Lakes fisheries and inland waters at a meaningful level and that science and research budgets be increased.
Recommendation 9
The Committee recommends that the government take immediate measures to address the current imbalance in the budgetary allocations for fisheries programs in the Great Lakes Region, bearing in mind the significant contribution these freshwater fisheries make to the Canadian economy. Particular attention must be given to increasing levels of funding for science and research in these fisheries.
3. Sea Lamprey Control Program
The introduction of the sea lamprey, as a result of opening up the Great Lakes to marine shipping, had a devastating effect on native fish populations throughout the 1940s and 1950s, resulting in the decline and collapse of both commercial and sport species.
The Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) was created in 1955 as a result of the Canada-U.S. Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries. One of the two mandates of the Commission was the control of the sea lamprey. Under the agreement, Canada is responsible for 31% of the cost of the program and the U.S. is responsible for 69%. Witnesses praised the program as an outstanding example of international cooperation. As a result of this program, lake trout have recovered to near historic levels in Lake Superior and have again become self-sustaining.
The St. Mary's River (which flows by Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, between Lake Superior and Lake Huron) produces more sea lamprey than all other Great Lakes streams combined. As a result, the northern end of Lake Michigan and almost the whole of Lake Huron is considered a sea lamprey "hot zone." Research has provided promising new ways of tackling the lamprey problem in the Ste. Mary's River; however, this will require additional funding estimated at US $5.7 million over the next five years.
Witnesses universally criticized DFO for failing to make a long-term commitment to stable funding for this program. Witnesses argued that when DFO cut its contribution to the Sea Lamprey Control Program by $1.3 million in 1996, it reneged on its legal responsibility under the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries. Although witnesses said that they were grateful for the restoration of funding by the previous Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (for the 1996/97 and 1997/98 years) and by the current Minister for meeting Canada's 1998/99 obligations, they were concerned that the commitment was once again only short term. The delays regarding funding commitments were causing uncertainty and difficulty with the long-term planning and coordination of the Sea Lamprey Control Program. Witnesses said, however, that the federal contribution of$6 million still falls $1.2 million short of the minimum level needed by the GLFC to deliver a basic program.
According to the American Fisheries Society, annual appropriations of at least$22.3 million in 1999 US dollars ($15.1 million from the United States and $7.2 million from Canada) are needed for the GLFC to fully meet its treaty obligations.
The State of Michigan has made a one-time "good faith" contribution of US $3 million to the Sea Lamprey Control Program. Witnesses commented that this did not change the fact that the Sea Lamprey Control Program is clearly a federal responsibility, based on the government's international commitment in the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries.
Witnesses referred to plans announced by the previous Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Fred Mifflin, to implement a "beneficiary pays" program directed at the recreational and commercial fisheries sectors to cover the future costs of sea lamprey control. They argued that Great Lakes fishermen should not be expected to pay for this program. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) described the plan as a "victim tax." Nevertheless, they agreed that fishermen would be prepared to financially enhance the Sea Lamprey Control Program as long as the federal government fully meets its obligation to fund the program. Other witnesses suggested that as the shipping industry was the beneficiary of the canals that opened up the Great Lakes, it should share in the cost of the program.
The Sea Lamprey Control Program is one of the most cost-effective programs supported by the federal government. In fact, according to witnesses, the federal government itself is the single largest beneficiary. Its contribution to the Sea Lamprey Control Program, which amounts to about 1% of DFO's annual budget, helps to maintain fisheries worth in the billions of dollars in their overall impact on the economy. The OFAH estimated that the federal government recovers over $60 million annually on GST alone from the Great Lakes sport fishery.
Witnesses called for a commitment to long-term stable funding to continue the current program, for enhanced funding for sea lamprey control in the St. Mary's River, and for research to develop alternative control strategies and reduce dependence on the use of the chemical lampricide, 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol (TFM). Without an effective control program, said witnesses, sea lamprey populations will increase throughout the Great Lakes and could spread to other inland waters. This could ultimately result in the decline of fish stocks and substantial economic losses to commercial, sports fisheries and to the tourist industry.
Recommendation 10
The Committee strongly urges the Government of Canada, through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to fund the Canadian portion of the Sea Lamprey Control Program from the Department's "A" Base. The Committee further recommends that the Government of Canada, through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, commit to provide a long-term minimum funding guarantee of $8 million per year to the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for the purposes of sea lamprey control and recognize that this commitment is of fundamental importance to the long-term survival of Great Lakes fisheries.
4. Ballast Water Exchange Regulations
The Great Lakes have been subjected to the invasion of a large number (140 or more), of non-native, "exotic" species. Many of these have had substantial impacts on the ecology of the Great Lakes and on native fish stocks. The sea lamprey and the zebra mussel are the best known of these, but others such as the round goby and the ruffe are also having a significant negative impact. There is also potential for additional exotic species to invade the Great Lakes. The sea lamprey is currently the only exotic species for which there is a proven control program. The cost of the Sea Lamprey Control Program is well established but the potential economic impact of other exotic species may be substantial as they could threaten a sports and commercial fishery valued at over $4.5 billion annually in the Great Lakes region.
Most of these exotic species have been introduced by the exchange of ballast water from ocean going vessels entering the Great Lakes. The issue is not restricted to exotic species. Human (e.g. cholera), fish pathogens (e.g. whirling disease), and disease vectors (e.g. mosquitoes) can also be introduced to the Lakes through ballast water.
The United States introduced mandatory regulations in 1993 to require the exchange of ballast water with salt water before entering the Great Lakes (U.S. regulations are enforced in theSt. Lawrence River, below Massena, New York). Canada currently has only a voluntary ballast water management program. Witnesses called for mandatory ballast exchange regulations. The OCFA recommended that such regulations to enforce the exchange of ballast water, included in draft amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, be approved in a timely fashion.
Even with regulations to require the exchange of ballast water, witnesses said there would be remaining problems. Older vessels may have only a single port through which to exchange ballast water. This means that freshwater ballast water has to be pumped out before salt water can be pumped in. For these ships, exchanging ballast water at sea is a safety issue, as they cannot be caught without ballast water at sea. Newer ships have two ballast exchange ports and do not have this problem. Even so, there is still a problem of incomplete exchange as a result of stratification caused by the different densities of salt and fresh water, which allows some species to survive.
The OCFA called for financial support for research priorities on other treatments of ballast water as identified by the Great Lakes Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species.
Recommendation 11
The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada immediately adopt measures to ensure that a mandatory ballast water exchange program be instituted and effectively enforced for vessels entering Canadian waters.
Recommendation 12
The Committee recommends that the government specifically acknowledge the substantial negative impacts of non-native "exotic" species on the ecology of the Great Lakes and especially on the native fish stocks, and therefore take immediate steps to provide adequate funding and other necessary measures to increase the science and research into the effects of such species, not only on the freshwater fisheries but also in relation to the quality of water in the Great Lakes.
5. Phosphorus
The Committee was told that there is increasing pressure from the commercial and recreational fisheries to abandon the phosphorus control program in Lake Erie. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters made a presentation to explain why phosphorus in Lake Erie should now be increased after years of a successful program to control phosphorus. They believe that zebra mussels have reduced the availability of nutrients in Lake Erie to the point where fish productivity has been reduced. In order to restore productivity, the amount of phosphorus needs to be increased. This could be done by simply omitting the last step in sewage treatment.
Other witnesses were sceptical about this proposal. They pointed out that most of the changes due to zebra mussels have occurred in the west end of Lake Erie and while the observations regarding zebra mussels are valid, they apply to the nearshore areas of Lake Erie rather than the offshore areas. Increasing phosphorus levels would have the greatest effect in the east end of Lake Erie where it is not needed. Furthermore, an increase in phosphorus might encourage the growth of mussels, which could do a great deal of damage.
The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters recommended establishing a "Blue Ribbon Task Force" to study the issue.
6. Water Export Permit
Witnesses were uniformly critical of the recent decision of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment2 to award an export permit to Nova Group for the export of 600 million litres of water a year for five years to Asia. Some witnesses suggested that the province should not be able to unilaterally issue such a permit as the Great Lakes are shared waters. A witness in Sault Ste. Marie recalled a Canada-U.S. workshop in the mid-1980s to address the issue of water exports from the Great Lakes. The unanimous conclusion of the workshop was that removal of water should not be permitted as this would set a precedent that would lead to increasing pressure to divert water for irrigation of arid areas in the mid-west.
Recommendation 13
The Committee recommends that, with respect to removal and exportation, the Government of Canada affirm its legal authority and jurisdiction over water in the Great Lakes. Furthermore, the federal government should declare that water is not a commodity to be sold for the benefit of a few but is rather an asset of all Canadians.
7. Underutilized Species
The Eastern Lake Erie Fishermen's Association indicated that burbot are so plentiful that fishermen who are fishing for whitefish or chub have to take their nets out of the water to avoid them. Currently there is no developed market for burbot despite the fact that the flesh is said to be white and delicious. They noted that the U.S. is funding research into the sale of sea lamprey into markets in Portugal and asked why there was no similar funding provided by the federal government to find markets for Canadian underutilized species. Another witness pointed out, however, that developing a market for sea lampreys could lead to pressure to maintain a sea lamprey stock for commercial reasons, which would be contrary to the goal of the control program.
1. Section 35 Referral Process
Under the Canadian Constitution, the federal government has the responsibility for the protection of fish habitat. The legislative authority for protection of fish habitat is contained in Section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act, which prohibits the unauthorized destruction or alteration of fish habitat. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for the administration of this section of the Act.
Under an Interim Referral Process between Ontario and Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (OMNR) has been reviewing proposals for development work for approximately the last eight years. It has done so without financial compensation. Due to the lack of progress toward a formal, permanent agreement that included compensation, the OMNR withdrew from the agreement as of 18 September 1997.
DFO currently does not have sufficient staff to handle the workload of assessments and the Committee was told that turnaround time for project approvals has increased substantially. Witnesses in a number of locations insisted that this issue must be resolved quickly as it is creating problems for people who require assessments. They also feared that developers may take short cuts which could impact adversely on fish habitat.
Recommendation 14
The Committee strongly encourages the federal government to settle the current habitat management dispute between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Government of Ontario. The Government of Canada must put into place a structure whereby the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would have the resources to adequately and efficiently complete the tasks associated with habitat management.
2. Migratory Fish Access
The Ontario Steelhead Fishermen have 400 fishermen dedicated to the voluntary, non-profit improvement of habitat. According to the group, migratory species (rainbow trout) were being prevented from getting access to spawning water by man-made dams. Many of the dams did not have fishways. The group had been involved in a trucking program to get the fish around these obstacles. The group argued that when a fishway is installed, it should be up to the owner to prove that it works and not up to others to prove that it does not.
3. Hamilton Harbour Restoration
A representative of the Bay Area Restoration Council (BARC) described the Remedial Action Plan for Hamilton Bay, one of the most seriously polluted areas on the Great Lakes. BARC is a non-profit organization with 175 members from all sectors including citizens, environmental groups, industry and government. A past lack of enforcement was attributed to the Bay being viewed as so polluted that it was beyond improvement.
The two main objectives of the program are restoration and public access. Since rehabilitation of the harbour began in 1986, there has been a major improvement in water quality; however, improving fish habitat has proven to be difficult, largely due to the disruptive effect of carp. Thanks to DFO, however, there is an effective and visible restoration program (the Cootes Paradise Fishway). BARC is trying to re-establish a warm-water fishery. They asked that DFO provide data from other areas to gauge progress in the restoration and provide information about warm-water fisheries. BARC also called for the restoration of funding for DFO to enforce its "no net loss" policy and for DFO science.
4. Red Hill Valley
The Friends of Red Hill Valley made a presentation to the Committee about the importance of preserving Red Hill Creek and Red Hill Valley, which run through the city of Hamilton. They wanted to stop the proposed Red Hill Expressway which is planned to run through the centre of the Valley. The group requested the Committee's help in preventing the expressway and preserving the Valley. Red Hill Valley is the largest city park in Canada and Red Hill Creek is the last remaining open stream of 14 in the city area. The Valley is an important conservation area that supports a large variety of wildlife. It also contains important archaeological and historic sites. The group emphasized the need for DFO to recognize the importance of inland urban resources and expressed its concern that the creek has not been getting the protection it deserves.
A representative of the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth told the Committee that the Region has been working with DFO to minimize the impact of the Red Hill Expressway. The withdrawal of the province from the referral process has created problems because DFO does not have the resources to provide the required level of service, thus leading to delays. The witness stressed the importance of the original arrangement.
The witness pointed out that under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), the need for an assessment may not become clear until too late in the process, by which time the project may be under way. In addition, the CEAA requires an assessment of cumulative impacts; however, the municipalities do not have enough experience. The Fisheries Act (FA) is important for the protection of fish habitat; however, better support is needed at federal and provincial levels. Duplication of environmental assessment processes triggered by the FA and the CEAA is not helpful and needs to be resolved.
The federal government is in the process of devolving responsibility for small craft harbours to local harbour authorities. The Ontario Commercial Fisheries Association (OCFA) pointed out that years of neglect have contributed to the deterioration of facilities across Ontario. Although, according to the OCFA, the fishing industry supports the creation of harbour authorities, it also stated that the costs associated with repairs and maintenance will be exceptionally expensive and would be beyond the resources of the commercial fishing industry.
The OCFA asked that DFO provide a lump sum payment for each harbour progressing toward the development of a harbour authority. This would ensure that the facility is safe and structurally sound prior to the harbour authority assuming responsibility for its maintenance. They asked that DFO ensure that arrangements to secure continued access for the commercial fishing industry would be built into agreements transferring ownership and responsibility to the harbour authorities. They also asked that harbours with the greatest significance to the commercial fishing industry be given priority for future DFO maintenance to ensure that the original intent of the Small Craft Harbours Program would be met.
The Eastern Lake Erie Fishermen's Association (ELEFA) registered its concern over the process for divestiture of the Port Stanley Harbour. The Association pointed out that fishermen are currently at the mercy of a system that is neither uniform nor rational. As an example, they cited the fact that a fisherman at Port Stanley pays ten times more for port facilities than a fisherman at Port Dover but receives much less in the way of services.
In order to have representation on a local committee involved in the divestiture of the harbour, the Association was required to pay $2,000 toward the cost of a study commissioned by the committee. The Association questioned whether this was fair and equitable treatment of commercial fishermen.
The ELEFA also pointed out that the harbour at Wheatley, the largest fishing port on the Great Lakes, has become dangerous due to the need for dredging. They noted that the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, to which Canada is a signatory, requires governments to take into account, among other things, safe havens for fishing vessels and arrangements to combat the effects of erosion and siltation.
Batchewana First Nations of Ojibways in Sault St. Marie presented a number of concerns. These included unfair quota systems that favoured non-native peoples, and non-natives blaming native fishers for depleting fish resources. They referred to the "Agawa" decision regarding native rights to commercial fishing and pointed out that they were at a disadvantage when dealing with the Province of Ontario as they did not have equitable access to legal advice.
They said that their traditional fishing area had been destroyed by industry and contamination. Although the Province would deal with the problem of contamination the issue of compensation was referred to the federal government. They also said that the Province of Ontario was failing to adequately assess fish stocks in their fishing area. Another issue was that one of their fisheries had been damaged when a whitefish spawning ground was replaced by salmon spawning ground.
The Saugeen First Nation told the Committee that it has reaffirmed its total jurisdiction over its traditional waters of Lake Huron and around the Bruce Peninsula. They stated that Canada has not lived up to its international obligations to consult with First Nations peoples. They described their approach to management of the resource as holistic and demanded respect and reciprocity from all users. They asserted that they had the right to fish commercially and that they would uphold their responsibility to manage their fisheries in a responsible manner. They insisted that the federal government maintain its fiduciary responsibility to the Saugeen Nation. They also said that they had asked that ports and harbours being divested be turned over to First Nations.
A representative of the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources told the Committee that there are 25 First Nations on the upper lakes, many of which assert that they have aboriginal and treaty rights to fish commercially. Some are already fishing commercially and others have expressed an interest in expanding their commercial fisheries. Commercial fisheries on the Great Lakes are already fully allocated. Increasing commercial fishing privileges to First Nations means the retirement of non-native licences, and the costs associated with this are likely to be substantial.
The Province of Ontario is currently in negotiations with several First Nations regarding commercial fishing and it believes that there is a role for the federal government to play, given the fiduciary responsibility of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND) and DFO's Aboriginal Fishing Strategy (AFS). The witness noted that DFO has developed the AFS but applies it selectively. Ontario is looking for more meaningful and constructive involvement from the federal government, especially from DFO.
The Eastern Lake Erie Fishermen's Association stated their opposition to the "ongoing concession of commercial fishing privileges to aboriginal fishermen". They noted that the courts have limited aboriginal rights in most cases to fishing for sustenance and ceremonial purposes only and they urged the federal government to prohibit the expansion of aboriginal commercial fisheries in areas where neither treaties nor court decisions have accorded them the right to fish.
THE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS
As in other regions of Canada visited by the Committee, witnesses gave DFO a mixed review. On the one hand, DFO's field staff and line management were often praised for their performance in the face of budget restraint and lack of resources. On the other hand, the upper levels of DFO are seen as having little interest in, or commitment to, freshwater fisheries. The Ontario Commercial Fisheries Association (OCFA) described DFO's attitude to freshwater fisheries as a "malaise that relegates Ontario's fisheries, fish habitat and freshwater aquatic sciences to an afterthought." They also referred to DFO's "proactive disinterest in most matters relating to inland freshwater fisheries in Ontario."
In Selkirk witnesses complained that DFO does not listen to local communities. In Sault St. Marie a witness explained the attitude of DFO to freshwater fisheries, saying "The void in Ottawa extends far beyond Ottawa - concerns for freshwater fisheries do not get fair consideration in Ottawa."
Many witnesses expressed concerns over the impact of budget cuts and staff reductions and the reduction of DFO involvement in freshwater programs as a result of program review. Other witnesses referred to the lack of DFO enforcement in remote areas. A similar sentiment was expressed in The Pas where a witness said that inland fisheries deserve equitable support, comparable to coastal fisheries. Another witness suggested that there are signs that DFO wants out of freshwater fisheries, adding that DFO needs to be reminded that it is a national, and not a regional organization.
Some witnesses questioned the concentration of DFO personnel in Ottawa. The OCFA claimed that in the mid-1980s, DFO staff in Ottawa numbered approximately 350 and that DFO Headquarters staff currently account for over 25% of DFO's entire staff compared to slightly over 6% in the mid-1980s. One suggestion made to the Committee was that a decision should be made about whether DFO should be structured to look after fish or maximize fishing income. By doing so, DFO could manage with fewer people.
A recommendation, made in Selkirk, was that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should prepare an annual report to Parliament on the state of freshwater fisheries.
Recommendation 15
The Committee urges the federal government to begin a comprehensive process of DFO restructuring. All changes should be based upon direct consultations with stakeholder groups. Special attention should be paid to areas such as the geographical distribution of personnel and funding and the establishment of a mission statement that would affirm the national mandate of the Department.
SCIENCE
In many of the locations visited by the Committee, concern was expressed over the insufficient support for freshwater science. In the Great Lakes, the ecosystems are changing rapidly and unpredictably because of factors that include fishing and environmental pressures, the invasion of exotic species, and possibly climate change. Concern was expressed that neither DFO nor OMNR science provides sufficient information to make sound decisions. Reduction of monitoring efforts has already eroded the databases. The Committee heard overwhelming evidence that there is a critical need to strengthen freshwater science.
The OCFA was critical of cuts to freshwater science and research from 1979 to the present. They pointed out that no saltwater laboratory in Canada has faced cuts as severe as the Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Science in Burlington, Ontario, which has had 50% of its staff cut. They also pointed out that less than 2% of DFO's total expenditures in science and research are directed toward fisheries work on the Great Lakes. This is significant because DFO research is critical to understanding nutrient levels needed to promote good fisheries production, and to permit the beneficial uses of Great Lakes water.
A number of recommendations were made to the Committee to improve the state of freshwater science. One was to provide more funding for the Water Surveys Branch. Another was to create a federal/provincial/industry partnership to form a new national freshwater fisheries research agency. This agency would cut across geographic boundaries and legislated mandates and pool scarce resources in a pragmatic approach to freshwater research.
Another recommendation was to expand the Freshwater Strategy. Currently the contaminants section of the Fisheries Act is administered by the Environment Canada (EC), while physical disruptions are administered by DFO. Both fish and fish habitat must be considered critical components of any federal Freshwater Strategy, and the EC and DFO must operate as full partners in its development.
Recommendation 16
The Committee observes that the level of technological research in the Ontario Region has been on a steady decline for the past several years. With this in mind, the Committee urges that the federal government fill the scientific void by substantially increasing the levels of meaningful research in Central Canada and specifically around the Great Lakes.
1 Unless otherwise noted, all dollar amounts are in Canadian funds.
2 The Ontario Ministry of the Environment announced on 14 May 1998 that it was initiating action to cancel the permit to Nova Group.