Freshwater Initiative

Issues and Future Directions

Confirmation of Fisheries Management Responsibilities

There is a complex patchwork of freshwater fisheries jurisdiction between the federal and provincial and territorial governments. This multi-jurisdictional management system has developed and evolved in Canada since 1868 when the first Fisheries Act was enacted. Regional differences reflect the need to address varying historical, constitutional, economic and social factors related to the freshwater fisheries.

Background

Under the Constitution Act (1867) the federal parliament was assigned responsibility for sea coast and inland fisheries while provincial legislatures were assigned responsibility for matters of property and civil rights and the management of public lands. Until about 1899, the federal government managed all Canada's sea coast and inland fisheries.

Court references between 1882 and 1898 determined that Parliament's authority over inland fisheries were limited where the propriety rights in those fisheries were in private hands or vested in the provincial Crowns. Provincial legislative responsibilities for inland fisheries were confirmed. These responsibilities include determining how and to whom fishing privileges can be conveyed, and managing public lands from which fishing privileges are derived (i.e., the owner of the bed of an inland water body has a propriety right to any fishery in that water body).

After 1899, a system of delegation of federal administrative authority (i.e., fisheries management regulatory authority, particularly section 43 of the Fisheries Act) developed with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, who had since the mid 1880's disputed the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction. At the time, some of the most commercially important fisheries in the country occurred on the Great Lakes.

A system of fisheries management delegation was also instituted in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba when management of Crown lands was transferred to the western Provinces after 1929. In British Columbia delegation of non-Pacific salmon species took place after the 1950's in a more informal setting. In 1989, a delegation agreement for freshwater fisheries responsibilities was instituted in the Yukon Territory.

In Nunavut and the Northwest Territories the federal government retains full management authority for all fisheries. Public lands are the responsibility of the federal Crown, as was the case in the western provinces prior to 1929, and no provincial-like system of delegation has developed. A 1976 Order-in-Council gives the Government of the Northwest Territories the authority to administer freshwater and anadromous sport fish licensing. This involves issuing sport fishing licences, enforcing angling regulations, recommending fees, and committing net revenues to territorial consolidated revenues.

In Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island, delegation has taken place only for trout enhancement. Provincial roles include licensing inland fisheries, enforcing provincial licensing provisions and supporting federal Atlantic salmon management and research, fisheries conservation and protection programs, and research and management programs for non-anadromous freshwater species. Regulatory control of the fisheries remains under the Fisheries Act.

In Newfoundland the federal government retains full management authority for all fisheries, in accord with the 1949 Terms of Union.

Current Situation

There is a complex patchwork of freshwater fisheries jurisdiction, ranging from full federal delivery to delegation in whole between the federal and provincial and territorial governments.

Where there has been delegation, the resultant system generally involves the Governor-in-Council approving fishery regulations (e.g., quotas, closed seasons) that have been developed by provincial or territorial governments. The regulations usually designate the provincial or territorial "fisheries" Minister or another official as the responsible authority for administering the regulations (e.g., in the Alberta Fisheries Regulations: "Chief Fisheries Officer" means the Director of Fisheries Management of the Natural Resources Service of the Department of Environmental Protection). Thus, while the legislative authority and responsibility resides with the federal government, the day-to-day administration rests with the provinces and territory. DFO's role has evolved to be primarily one of enacting provincial regulatory recommendations.

The system of delegation of administrative authority is heavily dependent on the federal regulatory process. The Provinces and Territory with delegated responsibility have long been critical of the process, particularly with the time needed to effect changes to Provincial Fishery Regulations. The Province of Saskatchewan has recently enacted a provincial Fisheries Act, which enables federal-like fishery regulations to be passed under provincial order-in-council.

In the interest of clarity on roles and responsibilities, more formal federal/provincial arrangements for freshwater fisheries have been developed in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. One purpose of these umbrella agreements has been to allow for clear assignment of authority to the provinces for all non-tidal, non-anadromous fisheries, and the ability to administer the full range of fisheries-related responsibilities that the Constitution will allow. These agreements also allowed for more specific sub-agreements detailing explicit commitments for carrying-out shared responsibilities relating to conservation, resource rehabilitation, economic development and fish habitat management. Only one sub-agreement has been developed, covering fish habitat management in Ontario. In 1997, Ontario withdrew from undertaking Fisheries Act authorizations under the Canada-Ontario habitat sub-agreement.

In 1993, the Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick discussed developing a memorandum of understanding with DFO to clarify their interests in freshwater sports fishing. The Provinces wanted to extend their administrative responsibilities beyond issuing and regulating inland sport fish licensing into some areas of the federal fishery management responsibility similar to those administered by some of the other provinces and territories. More recently the Province of New Brunswick expressed its interest into extending its licensing jurisdiction into tidal waters, being delegated authority for sport fisheries and in assuming full responsibility for fisheries protection in inland and estuarial waters. These proposals have not moved forward. Concerns for how this proposed delegation would impact the current level of integration of fisheries management, conservation and protection and science activities in Maritimes' fresh waters have not been resolved.

In 1994, the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) approached DFO to discuss the delegation of "province-like powers" involving an enhanced resource transfer for administering freshwater and anadromous fisheries. The two governments had conducted serious negotiations during 1987 and 1988 and developed an agreement to devolve federal freshwater fisheries activities and provide a resource transfer to the GNWT to fund the agreement. In the end, the GNWT chose not to proceed with the agreement, primarily for financial reasons. DFO responded negatively to the 1994 delegation request. There were several factors leading to this position. There were no incremental funds to conclude an agreement. The emergence of newly formed co-management boards under comprehensive land claims settlement legislation, and the pending division of the territory and creation of the Nunavut Territory were also considerations. As well, greater priority was placed on fish habitat delegation discussions with the provinces in the region, and other federal program review pressures.

Future Directions

DFO's recent fishery management renewal, oceans and sustainable development strategies have highlighted the priority of conservation, and the importance of integration, shared stewardship and transparent decision making. Fisheries management renewal involves pulling back from micro-management and focusing on core responsibilities, and providing the leadership to set the legal and policy framework in order to achieve core responsibilities. The approaches are relevant for DFO in freshwater fisheries: perhaps all the more, given the multi-jurisdictional nature of freshwater management systems.

The federal government would continue to establish and implement, with the provinces and territories, a legislative framework for fisheries management, particularly conservation.

The delegated management of freshwater fisheries in Quebec and the inland provinces has evolved over many years and is an example of effective federal/provincial co-operation. The same can be said of the more recent example of the Yukon Territory. Where there has been delegation in whole, this clear assignment of authority should be maintained. Roles of the federal and provincial governments with respect to freshwater issues involving Aboriginal groups remain a matter of debate. The federal position is that, because of their responsibility for managing freshwater fisheries, delegated provinces have the resulting responsibility to ensure that fisheries management is conducted in a manner consistent with any aboriginal or treaty rights.

No specific proposals are made to clarify delegation arrangements through umbrella agreements, as were advanced in the late 1980's. DFO's regions would be prepared to review the situation with their provincial and territorial counterparts. This may lead to regionally based arrangements and confirmation of the respective roles and responsibilities. However, as there are no incremental funds for this purpose, any such regional agreements would be limited and would have to occur within existing resource levels.

Where there is delegation in part or specific agreements, this clear assignment of authority should also be maintained. This would apply to trout enhancement in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, non-Pacific salmon species in British Columbia and aspects of sport fisheries in the Northwest Territories. With the creation of the Nunavut Territory, an agreement similar to that in place with the Northwest Territories may be beneficial. Any further agreement or delegation would require clarification of a number of policy and program issues, and is not proposed at this time.

In Newfoundland, DFO will continue to deliver the full federal mandate for fisheries management in fresh waters.

Recreational Fisheries

Freshwater angling is a major activity, representing about 94% of all angling activity in Canada. There are significant direct economic benefits from freshwater angling, as well as large economic impacts on the service and tourism sectors.

The vast majority of freshwater angling occurs in fisheries where the administration of federal jurisdiction for fisheries management has been delegated to provinces and territories. The DFO role in recreational fisheries has evolved since the preparation of the 1987 Canada's Policy for Recreational Fisheries, as the department is placing increased emphasis on the conservation priority.

Background

There are over 3.5 million Canadian anglers and some 750,000 foreign tourists visiting Canada to fish. Three fresh water species (trout, pickerel and perch) account for over 55% of anglers' catch of about 250 million fish a year, of which nearly 110 million are kept. Canadians spend about $1.8 billion annually on goods and services directly related to their angling activities (e.g., food, lodging, transportation, fishing supplies) while foreign tourists spend about $650 million. In addition, anglers invested an estimated $2.4 billion in capital goods which they attributed directly to their fishing activities.

The 1987 Canada's Policy for Recreational Fisheries outlines the guiding principles, objectives and approaches for managing sport fisheries. In the policy, angling is recognized as a significant and legitimate use of Canada's fish resources. Governments and resource users share responsibility for conservation and wise use, with the angling community bearing the responsibility for harnessing its skills and energy to conserve and develop the resource. Within the context of their respective responsibilities, federal, provincial and territorial governments are partners in the management of the fishery. On this last principle, the policy states the federal government will assure those federal initiatives in fresh water respect and support provincial and territorial management priorities.

Current Situation

DFO is currently reviewing its management programs for non-delegated sport fisheries. The review is planned to lead to a new policy framework to guide departmental activities and identify key policy objectives and priorities. This work will take the 1987 policy into consideration, but will specifically address resource conservation issues involving angling and mitigating strategies. It will consider the resource allocation framework in the context of providing greater recognition to the growing importance of angling, particularly in the context of fully subscribed fisheries. The work will also examine new development opportunities in the context of the roles of the different levels of government and industry; and the potential for partnerships for stakeholders in watershed planning, sport fish management, and innovative funding approaches (e.g., see the note in this report on Community Watershed Management for Atlantic Canada recreational fisheries).

In recent years, the National Conferences of Fisheries Ministers (NCFM) have been a forum for addressing recreational fisheries topics in the context of the federal and provincial and territorial partnership. The 1996 NCFM looked at issues relating to declining participation in the recreational fisheries. The 1997 NCFM discussed a number of "best-bet" national scope initiatives in the context of reversing the declining participation. This included commitment to a 1998 national recreational fisheries conference hosted by the DFO Minister.

In response to the declining participation, A "National Recreational Fishing Working Group" (NRFWG) consisting of provincial, territorial and federal government representatives and national industry/interest groups was formed. In 1997, it developed an "Action Plan to Revitalize Recreational Fishing in Canada". It identified priority issues and actions in the areas of participation, conservation and organization.

Four action items were identified to enhance angling participation. These included developing:

• a co-operative public and private sector "Market Tourism" program to promote Canada as a "fishing destination";
• a "Canadian Angling Week" program to provide a national profile event/platform to implement new initiatives;
• a "Youth Fishing Initiative" strategy that would develop an internet site to promote activities such as "learn to fish" clinics and "youth at risk" programs; and
• proposals for a responsible access development program aimed at enhancing physical access to fishing sites to provide greater opportunity for people to get out angling.

These initiatives are still in the preliminary stages. They require more input and commitment from the private sector angling community. In addition, funding issues need to be addressed.

The action plan identified a fisheries education program to supplement ongoing resource conservation activities of federal, provincial and territorial fish management programs. This education program would involve a national implementation of the "Fishways" program.

Finally the action plan outlined some organizational tasks that needed to be put in place to advance the participation and conservation action items. It proposed a short-term approach of using task teams composed of volunteers from the NRFWG to undertake specific tasks related to the action plan proposals. However, the over-all co-ordination and facilitation of the action plan needs to be finalized. Ontario representatives co-ordinated the activities of the Working Group in 1997 and DFO is undertaking the facilitation role for 1998-99. The provinces and the territories requested, and the federal government accepted, to take the leadership role for a one year period (from September 1998 to October 1999). DFO views its participation as one of fourteen governments, each of which is equal.

National recreational fisheries conferences were held biennially until 1992. These conferences provided a forum for non-government stakeholder (involving anglers and the commercial sector) input to broader recreational fishery policy formulation and program development. For example, the current recreational fisheries policy was tabled at the 1986 conference, and the discussions and recommendations from the conference formed an integral step in the final approval of the policy by the NCFM in 1987. They have also given public sector resource managers opportunities for consensus building and co-operative action. DFO sponsored these events and paid for the accommodation and travel costs of three or two invited attendees representing the angling community from each province and territory.

The lapse of these conferences was discussed at the 1997 NCFM. Minister Anderson committed DFO to host the 1998 conference. A long term issue for all public sector agencies with these conferences is funding the costs of invited participants, as the capacity to sponsor and absorb associated costs is limited.

DFO has undertaken angler surveys since 1975 with the latest survey, 1995 being completed in the fall of 1997. These surveys have been conducted every five years and are designed to provide governments and angling interests with primary statistical data and information on angling activities in Canada at the provincial/territorial level of statistical aggregation. Survey estimates and results are particularly useful for providing fisheries management programs with trend information on angling activities. In some jurisdictions, the survey information represents the only consistent source of data, particularly catch and effort data, on the sport fishery.

DFO works co-operatively with the provinces and territories in conducting the surveys. The provinces and territories provide some support and funding for bilingual questionnaire design and preparation, sample selection and mailing. DFO provides funding and support for data entry and processing, statistical analysis and preparation of survey publications and reports. Funding pressures caused some difficulties and delays in the planning and implementation of both the 1990 and 1995 surveys.

Future Directions

DFO will complete its review of management programs for non-delegated recreational fisheries. There is a need for a new policy framework and an articulation of key policy objectives and priorities for recreational fisheries directly managed by the department. This work should take the 1987 policy into consideration, but it specifically should address the resource conservation priority. There are no plans within DFO for a more comprehensive review and update of the 1987 Canada's Policy for Recreational Fisheries.

DFO will support continuation of biennial national recreational fisheries conferences. However, new funding arrangements with provinces, territories and the angling community will be required to sustain this national forum.

DFO will continue its role in the national angling survey. Funding constraints at all levels of government may result in a survey re-design, for example with less coverage in terms of topics addressed. Enhancement of the survey program will be contingent on new cost sharing allocations among provinces and territories. The federal government will continue to publish Canada-wide data in a national report.

The future directions of the NRFWG action plan are at this time unresolved. Co-operative private and public sector support and funding must increase for these initiatives to be sustained, as currently they have not reached levels sufficient to see potential projects through a complete planning phase, let alone implementation. DFO will fulfil its current co-ordinating commitments to October 1999, at which time it is expected that the role will be taken on by another jurisdiction as part of the rotation among all participating governments. DFO will review the action plan against its sport fish management policy framework to determine NRFWG implementation activities.

Community Watershed Management

Community Watershed Management (CWM) is of increased interest across Canada, for a variety of freshwater fisheries and fish habitat management needs, including:

• Quebec, which has full delegated responsibility for freshwater recreational fisheries, has the most notable and longest experience with community management through the ZEC system (Zones d'exploitation controlées).
• Newfoundland, where two CWM pilot projects have recently been established in partnership with the province and local community groups. The Indian Bay and Bay St. George pilot projects have been designed to test or evaluate concepts and approaches in support of the overall initiative.
• Ontario, where agreements are being established with conservation authorities for the delivery of specific fish habitat management responsibilities.
• British Columbia, where watershed management plans will be developed by communities with a wide range of stakeholders under the Resource Rebuilding initiative.
• Northwest Territories and Nunavut, where community based management is being advanced for small-scale subsistence and commercial fisheries in the Canadian Arctic.

In this note, the Atlantic and Pacific CWM experiences will be used to outline the main elements of the concept, with the understanding it is of much wider interest nationally.

Background

CWM is consistent with the current role of DFO. The Department is redefining its relationship with all stakeholders in the Canadian marine and freshwater fisheries. It is now expected that resource users will assume a greater decision-making role in the management of fisheries, as well as a greater contribution to sustaining the resource from which they obtain benefits. Provinces and territories are also facing their own challenges in re-defining their services, and CWM further provides them with an innovative and cost-effective approach for the management of freshwater fisheries and their supporting habitats.

Atlantic

In Atlantic Canada, CWM has been advanced on the basis of devolution of recreational fisheries management responsibilities to not-for-profit, local authorities that are representatives of the interests of users and local communities. It is a new and innovative strategy for increasing the direct involvement of local communities in conservation, rebuilding and sustainable use of river-specific and watershed-specific recreational fishing resources. The specific responsibilities devolved can vary and could include some or all of the following: licensing, enforcement, stock assessments/science, stock enhancement, habitat improvement and infrastructure.

CWM involves the creation of partnership arrangements relating to recreational fishery resources involving DFO, provincial governments and non-profit community groups. It also responds to the interest expressed by many community groups who wish to assume a larger role in the management of local fisheries resources and habitat.

The CWM process is evolutionary, in that responsibilities can increase over time. The intent is to build on the experience, growth and maturing of local community groups, as well as the level of local resources. The precise role and responsibilities of a participating group would be defined in a management plan approved by DFO and participating provincial authorities. Given provincial authority over issuing licences and setting fees for recreational harvesters, provincial contribution to the process is very important to the success of a CWM arrangement.

CWM provides the tools necessary to introduce watershed-specific management. From this perspective, it can offer the opportunity to significantly increase the resources available locally for management and conservation. It offers other conservation benefits, and may also result in additional economic benefits from the recreational fisheries resources.

A critical element in promoting increased local involvement in the management of recreational fisheries is to provide community groups with a mechanism through which to secure funding sources linked to the use of the fishery resource in their respective watershed.

Pacific

In Pacific Region, the recently released "A New Direction for Canada's Pacific Salmon Fisheries" identifies that "enhanced community, regional and sector wide input to decision making will be pursued through a structured management and advisory board system". Watershed management plans will be developed by communities with a wide range of stakeholders in Pacific Region under the Resource Rebuilding initiative.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada received considerable public advice and feedback during the 1998 coho recovery team consultations on the critical state of coho salmon stocks in the Pacific region. The consultations revealed unanimous public and stakeholder support for rebuilding wild coho stocks. Much of the advice focussed on the need to both restore degraded spawning and rearing habitat and improve the protection of existing habitats.

As a result of this advice, in June, 1998 the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced a five year, $100 million Resource Rebuilding strategy to bolster the federal government's actions on salmon habitat. This strategy, which is part of a larger Pacific Fisheries Restructuring and Adjustment Program, has four components: habitat restoration; strategic enhancement; establishment of a long range fund for community projects, and improved habitat protection.

Current Situation

Atlantic

The investment by DFO of over $80 million in the Atlantic Sportfish Enhancement Program, which included a large Commercial Salmon Licence Retirements Program, has not been sufficient to ensure significant salmon returns in many river systems throughout Atlantic Canada. The need for enhanced management is increasingly important now to protect the gains in the rebuilding of this resource and ensure additional growth in stocks.

Current management of the recreational fishery resource is, of necessity, based on "average" conditions in a given region or province. Yet individual watersheds vary considerably in terms of natural productivity, accessibility, and other factors. There is, therefore, a growing consensus that the management of these resources can be significantly more effective at the watershed-specific level.

Principles and guidelines have been prepared for further discussions on CWM initiatives with user groups and provinces. They include:

• a focus on conservation and sustainability of the resource;
• providing resource users with a greater role in decision-making regarding the management of the resource;
• shared responsibility and self-management, rather than simply workload transfers;
• preference for proposals that involve the respective province as an active partner;
• willingness to enter into discussions with provinces to clarify roles and responsibilities, including those relating to cost recovery through licence fees;
• aboriginal fishing must be taken into account, as well as the importance of involving aboriginal peoples as partners in co-operative action to conserve and rebuild the resource;
• recognition of the principle of public recreational access to the fishery. In this context, the introduction of additional user fees would be expected to be based on public consultations and broad based support;
• DFO, while continuing in its role regarding conservation and management will not fund administrative requirements or initiatives undertaken by the community watershed management authority.

Provincial governments in Atlantic Canada have raised concern that the perception of CWM as a barrier to access is of greater immediate concern than the potential benefits from agency-community partnerships. Their message is to approach the subject with caution:

• The Province of Nova Scotia has rejected the concept where such a management scheme would be contingent on deriving revenues from the provincial recreational licensing program;
• PEI sees no practical application;
• Newfoundland has undertaken a comprehensive public inquiry following a pilot project, and;
• New Brunswick places delegation of federal administration as a prerequisite to further consideration.

Pacific

A regional network of Habitat Auxiliaries and Stewardship Co-ordinators will support community watershed stewardship groups and/or work directly and proactively with local First Nations, developers, industry and other government agencies. The primary objectives are to prevent damage to fish habitat, advance sustainable land and water use planning and promote better land and water use practices.

The success of this program will depend largely on the ability to locally design and deliver effective habitat protection and watershed stewardship programs. One objective is to support or augment, with additional resources, established and successful fish habitat protection programs. Where local mechanisms or programs do not exist but are required, stewardship coordinators and auxiliaries will help establish and support them. The focus will be on pro-active activities, which provide habitat protection both in the short and long term.

The Pacific Region's program will be guided by the following principles:

• Strategic delivery in priority watersheds
• Scientific information exchange with stakeholders
• Field orientated program design and implementation
• Creation of long-term community stewardship capacity
• Clear linkages with existing and effective habitat protection programs
• Communication across governments, First Nations, industry and communities
• Adaptive program that responds to local opportunities, abilities and fish benefits.

The program will be delivered locally since there are a variety of habitat issues, geographic conditions, opportunities and community capacities across B.C. and the Yukon. The emergence of other local habitat protection programs also dictates that this program be tailored to fit each unique circumstance. In order to make these community-based programs work, there will be a need for DFO to provide ongoing advice and support in the form of information, technical advice, guidelines, training, communications materials, Geographic Information Systems support, etc. These support services will be provided as part of the program.

Future Directions

DFO is prepared to consider proposals for CWM arrangements for recreational fisheries throughout Atlantic Canada. A major community watershed management planning initiative is underway in the Pacific Region. Other variants and applications, such as community based management in the Canadian Arctic, are also proceeding.

Clearly, there are both potential benefits and challenges for government in implementation of CWM initiatives. Fundamental to this process is actively involving users in the decision making and management process while balancing overall responsibilities for conservation and the public interest.

Relevant to this approach is the work of a panel advising DFO on the best way to shape partnering arrangements and on the appropriate legislative framework for these arrangements. The panel has concluded that co-management and partnering mean different things to different people, although many see promise in their development. The panel reported that the majority of the people heard from agree that status quo arrangements are no longer viable, although there is no consensus on what ought to be done to promote partnering.

The panel has recommended that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans not go forward at this stage with legislation for partnering. There is still a great deal of preparatory work required for partnering to be supported by the fishing industry. The panel has recommended that the Minister and the department pursue co-management and partnering as a building block for the fishery of the future. It also recommended that DFO review and co-ordinate efforts to develop a community-based management approach. In the view of the panel, this approach is not only controversial, it is also not sufficiently defined.

Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation (FFMC)

The Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is a crown corporation without share capital, established under the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act with the agreement of the participating provinces. The Act gives the FFMC the exclusive right to market and trade in fish in inter-provincial and export trade in designated products of the freshwater fisheries supplied from the three Prairie Provinces, the Northwest Territories and parts of northwestern Ontario. Its objectives are:

• to market fish in an orderly manner;
• to increase returns to fishermen; and
• to promote markets and export trade in fish.

The Act requires the FFMC to purchase all legally caught fish offered for sale by licensed fishermen. It must conduct its operations on a self-sustaining financial basis without appropriations by Parliament. The FFMC now handles virtually all freshwater Canadian fish produced outside the Great Lakes.

The FFMC is managed by an eleven member board of directors composed of a Chairman, a President, one director for each participating province or territory and four other directors.

Background

In the early 1960's the Canadian freshwater fish industry was beset by serious problems. In the Prairie Provinces there was concern about recurrent price weakness, especially in export markets. Governments were particularly concerned about the effect this had on the well being of the primary producer, the fisherman, who ultimately bore the brunt of weak prices.

In response to requests from the Prairie Provinces and fishermen for help, the federal government appointed a Commission of Inquiry in 1965 chaired by Mr. George McIvor.

After an extensive investigation, the Commission of Inquiry concluded that:

• The export market was weak because there were too many exporters in Canada to counter the control exercised by very few importers in the United States.
• Fishermen were being penalized directly as a result of that situation.
• Fishermen were dependent on buyers who supplied fishing gear, boats, and other equipment at the beginning of the year, but never knew what they would get for their fish until the end of the year. They received year-end cheques if the market had covered advances made at the beginning of the year. Frequently, there was nothing at the end of the year.

To address these problems, the Commission's principal recommendation was the establishment, under federal legislation, of a Freshwater Fish Marketing Board.

The Commission's report was studied and endorsed by the fisheries ministers of the Prairie Provinces and the federal Ministers of Fisheries and Industry, Trade and Commerce. Parliament subsequently enacted the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act (FFMA) and the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation (FFMC) commenced operations on May 1, 1969.

The FFMC is modelled after the Canadian Wheat Board. It is designed to consolidate the production of many small, isolated fisheries under one processing and selling umbrella in order to improve returns in the marketplace and increase returns to fishermen.

In procuring supply, the FFMC sets initial guaranteed prices to fishermen, followed by final payments at the conclusion of the operating year. The working capital and capital asset requirements of the Corporation are financed through loans from the Minister of Finance.

The FFMC serves approximately 3,500 fishermen. Approximately 50% are status Indian and 10-20 percent are non-status Indian. The Corporation hires some 35 agents to deal directly with fishermen fishing from 300 to 500 individual lakes and landing their catch at one of 75 delivery points scattered throughout the FFMC's market and trade territory. The agents pack the fish in ice and ship it to the Corporation's processing plant in Winnipeg (40 to 50 million pounds round weight annually). Manitoba has the largest commercial fishery within the jurisdiction of the FFMC, accounting for approximately two-thirds of the landings and three-quarters of the landed value.

The FFMC provides important services in remote areas throughout its jurisdiction, including:

• a guaranteed market for all fish offered to it, subject to price and quality specifications;
• credit;
• a system of guaranteed collection points;
• a legislative requirement to maximize returns to fishermen (resulting in any gains in the market being netted back to fishermen); and
• a guaranteed price prior to the start of the season.

Current Situation

The Corporation has performed well and has been profitable since 1973 while meeting the objective of its mandate. In the last five years, sales have averaged $43.7 million, net income $3.5 million and returns to fishermen $28 million. The FFMC has retained earnings of $3.5 million as a contingency against possible future losses.

The FFMC has rationalized processing facilities from 35 plants and 200 packer-dealers twenty-five years ago to one plant and 75 receiving points, resulting in reduced handling and processing costs and hence, increased returns to fishers. A single selling desk has increased bargaining strength in the key U.S. freshwater market, which is characterized by a few large buyers. Amalgamation of many small lake fisheries has stabilised supply and facilitated orderly marketing of fish.

In the fall of 1994, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans requested that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans review the operations of the FFMC to determine whether support exists for the FFMC and its single desk selling mandate. In February 1995 the Committee tabled its report and recommendations on the FFMC. While acknowledging that the FFMC had fulfilled its mandate and operated in an efficient manner, the report indicated that it was not serving the interests of fishers in remote northern communities and recommended that it be wound up. The majority of the FFMC's stakeholders as well as the provinces and territories disagreed with the Committee's recommendation.

In June, 1995, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans tabled the government's response, which provided a balance between those seeking changes to the FFMC and the majority of fishers who support single desk selling. It included three measures:

1. deregulation of the purchase and sale of all rough fish;
2. unrestricted licensing of the purchase, processing and sale of all fish from the Island Lake region of northern Manitoba by the Island Lake Opakitawak Co-operative Ltd. for a three year period as a pilot project, with a commitment to assess the impact and effectiveness of the project after three years, and
3. creation of an elected advisory committee to the Board of Directors of the FFMC.

The first two measures have been implemented: unconditional special dealers licences for the purchase and sale of rough fish have been issued on demand, and; the community of Island Lake has been issued unconditional licences to sell its fish and is operating its own processing facility. Amendments to the FFMA to provide for an elected advisory committee were included in Bill C-49, which was tabled in June 1996. Bill C-49 did not get beyond second reading prior to the election call. These amendments to the FFMA were therefore re-introduced as part of Bill C-44, tabled in June 1998.

It will need to be determined whether the pilot project is viable and whether there would be adverse impacts on fishermen now selling to the FFMC from further expansion of these sort of arrangements. An independent evaluation of the Island Lake pilot project is underway. The government's position has been that the results of the Island Lake pilot project must be assessed before considering further expansion of such projects.

Future Directions

The FFMC was created to address a problem of inadequate prices for freshwater fish. Overa