Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries

Issue 9 - Evidence for October 2, 2001

The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries met this day at 7:00 p.m. to examine matters relating to the fishing industry.

Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the Chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Honourable senators, I should like to call the meeting to order and to welcome everyone back.

On May 10, 2000, in Gimli, Manitoba, a working group of the Fisheries Committee met with representatives of the Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium, an organization established in August 1998. This organization facilitates multi-disciplinary scientific research and assists in coordinating research ventures involving universities, governments and private interests.

In spite of the considerable aesthetic and economic value of Lake Winnipeg and its commercial fishery, committee members were told that very little is known about the ecosystem. This evening we are very pleased to have before us Mr. Allan Kristofferson, coordinator; Mr. Terry Miles, member of the consortium's board of directors; and Dr. Herb Lawler. Welcome, gentlemen.

I would like to ask if you have an opening presentation, after which we will introduce the members of the Fisheries Committee.

Mr. Allan H. Kristofferson, Coordinator, Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium: I will start with some history to bring the committee members up to date on where the consortium is.

Lake Winnipeg, as you know, is the 10th largest freshwater lake in the world. It has a massive drainage basin that stretches all the way from the foothills of the Rockies in the west to just west of Lake Superior in the east. It then heads down into the United States, into North Dakota, South Dakota, a little way into Montana, and into Minnesota.

It supports the largest freshwater fishery in Canada west of the Great Lakes. Its landed value has, at times, approached $15 million annually. In addition, its value as a reservoir for hydroelectric production, and for tourism, is in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Its value is beyond doubt.

It is a large and complex body of water. No single agency has the resources, human or otherwise, to do research adequate to protect and sustain it, now and into the future. This has been recognized for some time. We became proactive a number of years ago and, in discussions with various government agencies, corporations and university groups, we decided that the best way to approach this problem was to work collectively.

We formed the Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium in August 1998. Its present membership stands at 24. We had listed 23 member agencies in the report we submitted to the Senate committee in April 2001. A new member, the Gimli Yacht Club, represents significant recreational interest in the lake, another stakeholder who will play a part in what we are intent on doing.

The consortium represents a powerful research group with connections to stakeholders. It is ideally positioned to carry out multi-disciplinary research on the lake. It functions as a facilitator, as it doesn't have a mandate of its own. The consortium provides a forum within which researchers can gather to coordinate their efforts in an efficient and cost-effective manner. We provide a platform so that research on the lake can be conducted safely and effectively. We also identify educational opportunities associated with this research whenever and wherever possible.

In 1997, the Canadian Coast Guard vessel Namao became surplus to Coast Guard needs when the Aids to Navigation program was contracted out to private interests. The vessel was subsequently put up for disposal. The consortium members were aware of the value of this vessel to research on Lake Winnipeg. It is currently the largest vessel on the lake and was used in 1994 and 1996 by university and government researchers to do work on the recent geological history of the lake, so its value as a research vessel was unquestioned. Namao has proved itself large, safe, and well equipped to do all the kinds of research that we intend to pursue.

Given that the Namao was up for disposal, the consortium asked the Coast Guard to reconsider and make it available for research on the lake. The Coast Guard acceded to the request and, in fact, agreed to crew the ship on a cost-recovery basis. They made it clear to the consortium members that they could not justify funding a vessel for which they did not have a specific use; however, it has been made available to the consortium members on a cost-recovery basis.

In 1999, the consortium was able to raise funds for a three-week cruise on Lake Winnipeg. In August of that year, the entire lake basin was sampled. Results of that research are summarized in the report presented to the Senate Committee on Fisheries in April 2001. A survey this extensive had not been carried out for 30 years. Forty-seven stations were sampled and a number of parameters were examined.

The ship was not available to the consortium in the summers of 2000 and 2001 as a result of maintenance work required by Transport Canada to meet safety requirements. Consortium members endeavoured to raise the money to carry out this maintenance but were not able to come up with the funding in 2000, so a limited amount of research was carried out on the lake on smaller vessels. The results of the 2000 season are contained in the report submitted to the Senate Fisheries Committee in April 2001.

The consortium applied to the Canada/Manitoba Economic Development Partnership Agreement this spring, requesting $307,000. It is a one-time-only expense to bring the ship up to the safety standards required by Transport Canada. An additional $19,000 was requested for a power cable out to the vessel to keep it functional over the course of the winter, when the engine needs to be heated.

We were most pleased that the Canada/Manitoba Economic Development Partnership Agreement accepted our request and provided us with the $326,000 necessary to do this one-time-only maintenance. This announcement was just made on September 21, and we now have the resources to bring the ship up to required safety standards. This maintenance work will be done over the course of the winter, and the vessel will be available to us as soon as the ice leaves the lake in the spring.

I am also happy to report that the Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium is completing a plan to provide funds to operate the Namao on Lake Winnipeg for a minimum of 10 weeks per year for each of the next three years, during which period we intend to work on a longer-term plan. We note that the cost of future annual and long-term maintenance is included in that operational budget. We are pleased, therefore, to report to the committee that we will be up and running and mounting a full program on Lake Winnipeg, starting early next spring.

The focus of the program at this point is on water quality. Planning is also underway to include other research topics such as the effects of the recent invasion of rainbow smelt.

I would also like to report that the Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium is now the Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium Inc. We were incorporated officially on August 9, 2001. We have a new address: 62 Second Avenue, Postal Box 1289, Gimli, Manitoba, R0C 1B0.

That is a synopsis of what we have done to date. We are certainly prepared to field any questions that you might have for us.

Senator Johnson: I think the key for this committee is to know exactly what you intend to accomplish over the next 24-month period. Your mandate is scientific research. It is multi-disciplinary, but you and I both know that on that lake, there are many concerns: hydroelectric power; diversion from North Dakota; recreational skidoos; the appearance of zooplankton; levels of mercury, lead, coliform; rainbow smelt.

I know you are interacting with the fishermen. Many believe they can be of assistance to you in gathering the information. I see David Olson is involved. What do you hope to accomplish in the first year? How will these other things I mentioned impact your efforts? There is talk also about putting a new hydroelectric power plant on the Nelson. How will these factors affect the work you are doing and the quality of the lake water?

Mr. Kristofferson: Indeed, all the points you raised are important and may further impact the lake.

The consortium's work in 1999 found that the biggest challenge facing Lake Winnipeg right now appears to be nutrient enrichment or "eutrophication." We found a buildup of nitrogen and phosphorus in the lake. Those are two nutrients, essentially fertilizers, that promote growth of many kinds of organisms, including aquatic ones. The lake levels of nitrogen and phosphorus were higher than they have been historically. Nutrient loading is the main issue.

Senator Johnson: Mr. Kristofferson, is that a result exclusively of the extensive hog operations in the area, or of other things as well?

Mr. Kristofferson: These nutrients come from agricultural activities: livestock rearing and cropland production; application of fertilizers on the farm fields; and urban sewage. Hence, it is very difficult to identify the source. We do not know where these nutrients come from; simply that they're in the lake. The next course is to find out.

In fact, last year's and this year's research has primarily focused on that. We are trying to assemble a nutrient "budget" by measuring the nutrient input into the lake from the major sources and the output from the lake. That will give us an idea of how much is being retained in the lake.

Secondarily, and now that the vessel is available to us, we have a number of university groups who are interested in focusing on some other problems - for instance, effects of exotics on fish production

The basis of our work will, as outlined, focus on water quality, but other work will start as we progress.

Senator Johnson: Have you identified any exotics that are not in the document that I have? What are the exotics?

Mr. Kristofferson: No, not since we submitted the document to the committee.

Senator Johnson: What are the major exotics that are at issue?

Mr. Kristofferson: Mainly the rainbow smelt. It has already made its way to Hudson's Bay. It entered the lake about 10 years ago. It appears to be a major food item for one of the most important quota species, the walleye, also known as pickerel.

We have no idea what effect rainbow smelt will ultimately have on the ecosystem. It may have contributed to an increase in growth, and perhaps survival, of walleye. The department of conservation has reminded us that the commercial fishery on Lake Winnipeg last year was one of the best on record.

Increased nutrients throughout the ecosystem may have resulted in increased survival and growth of walleye. Early anecdotal indications this year are that the fishery has not been very good so far, but it is too early to tell. That is certainly something we would like to better understand. We also hope to find out if the smelt also impact other species.

Senator Johnson: What are the fishermen telling you about the quality of the lake now and invasive species? It is an issue for us, of course, because in the United States, money has been approved to continue work on that. When this committee was at the Freshwater Institute, it was told about the possible impact of more species we do not know of coming from the prospective diversion.

Mr. Kristofferson: The record will show that the introduction of exotics as a result of human activities has almost always resulted in bad news. We do not want to do that deliberately - indeed, we wish to prevent it. Another potential threat to Lake Winnipeg is the zebra mussel. I have been told that it is not a question of if it comes, but when. We have no idea what is going to happen there, but remain vigilant as we await its appearance.

The Lake Winnipeg consortium is not in a position to comment on the reworked Garrison project, or others. Other government agencies are involved in that. Our objective is to carry out research on the lake to get a better understanding of what is happening.

The Chairman: I was pleased to hear that you are, in fact, looking at some of the impacts of degradation of habitat, because that is one of the areas that this committee plans to study in the future. We look forward to learning about the findings from the consortium's research in this very important area.

Senator Robertson: Lake Winnipeg holds a very important commodity for the province of Manitoba. As the Chair has suggested, fish habitat is a major concern of this committee. I note here in a document you sent that:

The need for such study was recognized long ago but little has happened partly as a result of jurisdictional confusion.

Could you just explain to me what those "jurisdictional confusions" are?

Mr. Kristofferson: My understanding is that, going back to 1930, and as a result of resources transfer arrangements, the Province of Manitoba was granted the responsibility of managing the fishery, although the ultimately responsibility for fisheries across Canada rests to this day with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

In Manitoba, however, the specific responsibility to carry out research has not been well delineated. Since that time, there has been what we call "jurisdictional confusion." Dr. Lawler was involved in this a number of years ago, so perhaps he can provide some insight into this.

Dr. G. H. Lawler, Member, Head, Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium: In 1944, there was a major problem in the Prairies, particularly in the larger lakes, with whitefish, perhaps our most important fish. A parasite was found in its flesh that affected the look of it, and therefore sales, although the edibility was unaffected. The United States put an embargo on the import of Canadian whitefish. As a result, the Canadian federal government established, in Winnipeg and on the West Coast, the Fisheries Inspection Service. The Central Fishery Research Station in Winnipeg was set up to carry out research particularly on this parasite, and to look for ways to eliminate it or assist in getting the fish across the border.

The fisheries inspectors routinely examined all of the lakes that produced whitefish in the Prairie provinces and in Northwestern Ontario. They were able to eliminate many lakes without a major inspection. However, anything that was inspected by the fisheries inspectors eventually received carte blanche to enter the United States. Many nefarious practices were conducted at the time to bootleg parasite-ridden fish across the border, but such operators were caught and subsequently punished by our own Department of Fisheries.

That is why the federal government got involved, not in the management, but in the research of the fishery. The Fisheries Inspection Service was established for the Prairie provinces, the Territorial government and Northwestern Ontario, and is now part of the Canadian Food Inspection Service.

That has been the federal input since 1944.

Senator Robertson: Would you be able to tell me the value of the yearly fishery catch from Lake Winnipeg? Is that up or down from years ago?

Mr. Kristofferson: It has peaked near $15 million in the past. Our member from the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation would be able to provide specific figures, but it probably is between $8 million and $10 million a year. Last year was a good year, one of the best on record. That is the landed value only, of course.

Senator Robertson: I noticed in your document that a number of First Nations communities are situated on the lake and downstream on the Nelson River system. Some of these communities use the Nelson for drinking water. Can you tell me whether either the Environment department or Fisheries has tested the water supply for the First Nations communities there?

Mr. Kristofferson: My understanding is the water quality department of Manitoba Conservation has done so. They are members of the consortium, and well aware of the situation in Lake Winnipeg. That would be their responsibility. The consortium is not aware that the quality of the drinking water is poor. But Health also has a responsibility there.

Senator Mahovlich: I understand that the zebra mussel came into Lake Ontario hanging on to ships, and then entered our lakes and plugged up the pipes. How could they get into Lake Winnipeg unless boats go into Lake Winnipeg from Lake Ontario? That is impossible.

Dr. Lawlor: Not really, because we have a major tourist industry in Manitoba, and many boats are brought into the province. Large signs are posted stating: "Check your boat for zebra mussels before you enter the province." Thus they are already alerted to the fact that zebra mussels can be transported overland in that way.

Senator Mahovlich: The mussels still hang on to boats that are out of the water?

Mr. Kristofferson: They are tough little guys. They can last for quite a while.

Dr. Lawler: Some experiments have been carried out to try to eliminate them in hydro turbines and other places, from electrocuting them to pouring acid on them, but have not succeeded in killing them.

Senator Mahovlich: There are many rivers that run into Lake Winnipeg, so that would be very difficult to police.

Dr. Lawler: That's one of the problems, Senator Mahovlich, with the introduction of foreign species. It happens when people take bait buckets from one lake to another. For instance, a small sucker may be introduced to a lake without suckers when caught in another lake and dumped out after the person finishes fishing. Many introductions happen in that way.

Senator Mahovlich: Much concern has been expressed about the Americans emptying floodwaters from their rivers into Canada. Have we solved that problem, or is it still pending?

Dr. Lawler: As far as I know, it is still pending. The international joint commission is looking at that together with Canadian provincial governments.

Mr. Kristofferson: I think the Red River Valley flood potential is still there, and will be for some time.

Senator Adams: As your neighbour from Rankin Inlet, from Nunavut Territory, I used to be a member of Freshwater Fish Marketing at one time, but we never heard any questions asked about research. Doctor, you mentioned doing some work in the Territory. In some communities there, more knowledge is sought about Arctic char. In the 1970s, Artic char were found in Rankin Inlet, but were not commercially fished. Now, communities where people used to live off the land are fishing in the summer right close to shore, and also in the wintertime for food for the families. Has the consortium recorded a decrease or increase in Arctic char stocks in the Territory or Nunavut?

Mr. Kristofferson: The Lake Winnipeg consortium does not address that problem, but the Department of Fisheries and Oceans co-manages Arctic char in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut with the Nunavut Wildlife Board. They do carry out research on Arctic char populations across Nunavut. The consortium is not in a position to answer that question specifically, but that work is being done in conjunction with the Nunavut Wildlife Board.

The Chairman: I have a question relating to the report that you presented to us in April 2001. It had to do with the amount of research done on Lake Winnipeg relative to research being done on the Great Lakes. I would like to refer to table 1, on electronic searches on March 29, 2000, using lake names as keywords in three bibliographic archives of scientific publications from Cambridge Scientific Abstracts.

Aquatic sciences and fisheries abstracts, 1978 to present: Lake Ontario, 1438; Lake Erie, 1289; Lake Huron, 496; Lake Michigan, 1382; Lake Superior, 795; Lake Winnipeg, 53.

Conference papers index numbers are in the 100s, except for Lake Winnipeg, with 15.

Environmental sciences and pollution management: Lake Ontario, 1615, and so on well into the 100s, but Lake Winnipeg has 41.

I would like you to comment on why, given that Lake Winnipeg is bigger than Lake Ontario, such low numbers appear in these research statistics.

Mr. Kristofferson: I am not sure I know the answer. Lake Winnipeg is considered a "great lake" as well, and together with the other Great Lakes, borders on the United States, so there is international involvement. The United States put significant resources towards research on their side of the lake. The Canadian government has a responsibility to be jointly involved. The importance of fisheries on the other Great Lakes is very evident, and has been a major factor behind many of these studies.

The Great Lakes border the largest population centre in Canada, and so in a sense, are in Canada's "backyard." Lake Winnipeg is in the hinterland, with an international connection, not on the lake, but on the Red River, a major tributary. It is geographically less obvious than the joint borders on the Great Lakes, but it is still there.

There is some jurisdictional confusion. Then there is also the availability of resources. I pointed out that Lake Winnipeg is a very large and complex body of water. Many resources, human and otherwise, are needed to adequately research it. As well, an adequate vessel is needed to perform the work, and until very recently, we have not had that. It must be a dedicated and capable vessel. Other vessels on the lake are smaller and not dedicated. They are involved in the fisheries and in other activities. Any research had to sort of take place in a "tag-along" sense: "If we have time and space for you, we'll put you on board, but otherwise not."

Recognizing that research has not take place in the past for a variety of reasons, if we combine our efforts, pool our resources, and have available to us a dedicated and capable research vessel, we will be in a position to change those statistics. And that is, in fact, what we intend to do.

Dr. Lawler: I wanted to add that the joint Great Lakes Fishery Commission operates over the major Great Lakes other than Lake Winnipeg. Lake Erie, for instance, which is perhaps the most productive freshwater lake in the world, is bordered by five American states and Ontario. The number of people centred on these lakes justifies the number of publications. State agencies, federal agencies, and joint international agencies are all involved. That accounts for much of the work that has been done. Canadians want more work done on our Great Lakes too.

The Chairman: How does the landed value of fish in Lake Winnipeg compare with one of the Great Lakes in Ontario?

Dr. Lawler: Those figures are available, senator, I just can not provide them off the top of my head. Our group has not been working with them. Lake Erie is a larger producer than Lake Winnipeg. Lake Superior probably compares more to Lake Winnipeg in actual value. Millions of dollars were spent on sea lamprey control in Lake Superior to save what was an approximately $100,000 fishery.

The Chairman: Does the consortium know the source of the rainbow smelt?

Mr. Kristofferson: We believe they came in through the Winnipeg River system, from Ontario.

The Chairman: Is there a connection to Lake Winnipeg, or would they have been brought in by fishermen in order to stock the lake with them?

Mr. Kristofferson: There is no direct connection. The Great Lakes and Lake Winnipeg are in two different drainage basins, but their waterways are very close one to the other, with the eastern ones containing rainbow smelt and the western ones not. As Dr. Lawler explained, poor practice by anglers can result in the release of bait buckets of fish, and smelt in particular, into other systems. Once there, they become very prolific, grow rapidly, and work their way down through the Lake Winnipeg drainage system. That is how the consortium thinks they got there.

The Chairman: Have you assessed the long-term impact of the introduction of this species on Lake Winnipeg?

Mr. Kristofferson: No. We are just getting started. As a matter of fact, there was a research plan for 2000 to do experimental trawling throughout the entire Lake Winnipeg basin using the Namao. The Namao was not available in 2000, however, so only a small amount of experimental trawling was done in the south basin. The individual interested in pursuing that is very excited that the ship is going to be available next summer and fully intends to carry that program out. That will start to give us an idea of the abundance and distribution of smelt.

Also, different species of fish have been collected throughout the lake basin to examine whether or not they are eating smelt, and preliminary work has been carried out on the effect smelt might be having on the food chain.

The Chairman: Was there a native smelt in Lake Winnipeg?

Mr. Kristofferson: No.

The Chairman: I want to congratulate you on the activities of your consortium. It is good to hear that people are interested in their own regions and make the effort that you people have.

Senator Johnson: I think the studies done on the Great Lakes were at the time of the mercury scare. Do you know what year the lake was shut down due to mercury in the fish?

Mr. Kristofferson: It was 1969-1970.

Senator Johnson: Is that the last time?

Mr. Kristofferson: Yes, the commercial fishery has been open since.

Senator Johnson: You would think that we would have done more research and been more proactive about our lake, at all levels of government and the community, but we were not.

We have finished another environmental study, as you know, about erosion. A lot of things are now happening. The community is more proactive. Various levels of government are being pressured to do something about the quality of the lake water. This consortium is a result of this increasing pressure, but it has taken quite a while because of the location. As Mr. Kristofferson said, we are in the hinterland.

I thought that I should bring that to the attention of the committee, because until we went, there had never been an official Senate or Parliamentary committee visit. No one, other than an individual or minister, ever talked to the people about Lake Winnipeg. We have made tremendous progress in a short period of time.

I commend the committee and thank them, because I, of course, started raising the issues with you, and this is the first time anybody has followed up. And I think it really looks positive for the future. Many other studies are now happening.

We have to be very vigilant, given our location, because the lake does not border on very populous areas, but it does affect our aboriginal peoples tremendously.

Mr. Kristofferson: When you gave us the opportunity to address the committee previously, we were very pleased, as we are with the opportunity to talk to you tonight. Support from every sector is vital in getting this program started and keeping it going. It has given us a tremendous boost to have the ear of the Senate Fisheries Committee. I cannot say too much about that.

The Chairman: I am not going to wrap up just yet. I do know we have one final person with some questions, but I should note that Senator Johnson, who has been a faithful member of the committee for quite some time and as active as any of us, is now a voting member. Thank you for coming onboard as a full-fledged member, Senator Johnson.

Senator Mahovlich: I just noticed in the report, reference to a shortjaw cisco as a threatened species. In Northern Ontario, where I come from, if one was caught, it was thrown back in the water. Am I wrong?

Dr. Lawler: The ciscos are part of the whitefish family. Whereas the whitefish feeds on the bottom, on, for instance, mayfly larvae, the cisco feeds somewhere in the intermediate levels, primarily on plankton. We refer to the fish you are talking about as "tullibees," which happen to be more heavily infected with a certain type of tapeworm than whitefish. Probably they were thrown away because they were wormier.

Senator Moore: In your paper, Mr. Kristofferson, you mentioned that you had the use of the Namao for three weeks in 1999, when you sampled 47 stations. Is it in 2001 that you will have the ship for 10 weeks a year?

Mr. Kristofferson: No, it will be 2002, next spring.

Senator Moore: Do you intend to go back and re-sample the original 47 stations and then proceed from there? Have you worked on the research plan for 2002?

Mr. Kristofferson: Yes, we have. There is a core plan. The stations have been reduced from 47 to 40, which makes sampling more efficient but still gives us good coverage.

As I mentioned earlier, the main issue we have to deal with is the nutrient loading or eutrophication. The plan is to do a three-week survey in the spring, right after the ice leaves the lake, and to repeat that survey at the height of the growing season, which is probably from the middle to the end of August, similar to the one we did in 1999. Then we want to do it again right at the end of the open-water season near the end of October. That will give us some understanding of the distribution and abundance of the algae that are produced as a result of nutrient enrichment.

Senator Moore: With the different temperatures prevailing in those three time periods?

Mr. Kristofferson: That is correct, sir, yes. It is over the course of the open-water growing season.

We did some winter work last year by helicopter, and did not cover nearly as many stations. That work, however, will give us an idea of what will happen to the algae bloom in the wintertime.

Senator Moore: Where do you take the samples? Do you have a lab onshore in Winnipeg? Where do you sit down and do your analysis and your thinking and storing of materials and samples?

Mr. Kristofferson: Some of the analysis is done onshore, some of it onboard the vessel. A small lab was set up in the former hold of the vessel and a continuous water sample was taken through an aperture in the hull as the vessel was moving from one station to the other. We did not just obtain information from discrete sampling points; we got continuous information as well. That information gave us chlorophyll and conductivity measures.

Some of the other analyses have to be done onshore in laboratories - for instance, the identification and quantification of algae species and the chemical analysis of the water quality. The examination of some of the parameters Senator Johnson referred to, such as the coliform count, has to be done within 24 hours in a laboratory in Winnipeg. The samplings must therefore be taken very quickly to the lab to get this analysis done properly.

Senator Moore: Is this lab your own, or do you have to use the facilities of a private lab or the university?

Mr. Kristofferson: Some of the analysis is done at the Freshwater Institute, and some at the University of Manitoba and the University of Winnipeg. Manitoba Conservation sends some of their analyses to a private lab.

Senator Robertson: Are you are saying that the Red River yields pollution at flooding time? Is that the only polluting river going into Lake Winnipeg from the American side?

Mr. Kristofferson: It is the main one. A small part of the northwestern drainage basin of Lake Winnipeg extends into Montana, but no significant toxic material or contaminants come from that area.

Senator Robertson: Has the international joint commission moved in this regard to help you, or are they showing an interest?

Mr. Kristofferson: Actually, they have. The Red River Basin Board held a public meeting in Gimli, Manitoba, earlier this summer. In fact, the Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium was given an opportunity to make a presentation. The board commented that its mandate is the Red River basin. I asked them specifically why they were in Gimli, then, and the response was: "Well, we know that Lake Winnipeg is just the end of the pipe." They are quite aware that Lake Winnipeg is, in fact, very important to the activities that are undertaken in the basin for which they are responsible. They are interested, and I expect we will hear more from them.

Senator Robertson: It will be interesting to know what they do. We will keep an eye on that and see if they are really effective.

Is there any interest in fish farming in the Lake Winnipeg area?

Dr. Lawler: I am not sure about around Lake Winnipeg currently, but some years ago, there was an effort made to rear rainbow trout in "potholes," among other things. There are many potholes in the province of Manitoba and the surrounding country. These efforts proved feasible to a point, but we could not predict the variability in seasons. Quite often, a person would buy rainbow trout and plant the fish in a lake, but by August, it suddenly heated up and all the fish were killed. Fish would die in winter because there was no oxygen left in the lake. There were other pockets of aquaculture around the perimeter of the lake, but nothing extensive.

Mr. Kristofferson: A few individuals tried raising Arctic char just as a hobby, without much success. The Arctic char is native to the Arctic, where the resource is the best you can get your hands on. I am making a plug.

Senator Robertson: I think we saw some of that when we were visiting Senator Adams's area, although we have not given up, and I do not think your people have given up, on seeking success with that particular venture.

There is much good research material available in Canada on aquaculture, or fish farming. I know that lots of people would be willing to help, just as a friendly gesture, should some of your people decide to move in that direction.

The Chairman: Gentlemen, on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for spending the time with us this evening to enlighten us on what you have been doing, the recent progress of your consortium, and to help us understand more about Canada's inland areas.

The working group that visited Gimli thoroughly enjoyed the stay. Senator Mahovlich and I still think fondly of "Chris the Fish" restaurants and the great French fries, and we hope to come back soon.

On behalf of the committee members, may I thank you again.

The meeting continued in camera.