Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue No. 3 - Evidence - April 19, 2016
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 19, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 5:09 p.m. to study issues relating to the federal government's current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans.
Senator Elizabeth Hubley (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good evening. My name is Elizabeth Hubley, a senator from Prince Edward Island, and I am pleased to chair this evening's meeting. Before I give the floor to the witnesses, I would invite the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais, Quebec.
[English]
Senator McInnis: Tom McInnis, Nova Scotia.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen, New Brunswick.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier, New Brunswick.
The Deputy Chair: The committee is continuing its study on issues relating to the federal government's current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans. The topic under consideration this evening is the decline of the wild Atlantic salmon returns on the East Coast of Canada.
We are pleased to welcome the former Chair and Vice-Chair of the DFO Minister's Advisory Committee on Atlantic Salmon, Mr. Greg Roach, Contractor, Greg Roach Fisheries Services; and R. William (Bill) Taylor, President, Atlantic Salmon Federation.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for being here today. I understand you have opening remarks. In the interest of allowing as much discussion as possible in the time available to us, could I request that you please limit your opening statements to no more than 12 minutes total.
You may begin.
Greg Roach, Contractor — Fisheries Services, Greg Roach Fisheries Services: Thank you, committee members. I would like to start off by saying how pleased we are to hear that you are reviewing wild Atlantic salmon. It is an issue that is important for Atlantic Canada and Quebec and certainly dear to my heart and to Bill's. I will speak a bit about the committee that worked on the report last spring.
Minister Shea announced the committee in December of 2014, following a very bad run of Atlantic salmon over the years. There have been problems for a number of decades starting with habitat issues related to damming of rivers, electrical power, mill dams, log runs and many activities in the natural environment.
Then we moved into acid rain problems. That really hit some of the rivers hard, particularly in Nova Scotia where a number of rivers on the South Shore were actually considered dead for Atlantic salmon.
Land use practices, such as farming and forestry, had a major impact over the years on the natural waterways. The declines continued.
In 2014, it was particularly bad and was noticed in the Miramichi and other rivers in the Maritimes, also in Labrador and in rivers in Quebec, and it got the attention of DFO and Minister Shea. At that time she announced the committee that we will report about today.
The committee comprised of nine members, myself as chairman and Bill as vice-chair. The members consisted of representatives from Quebec, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. All members had past experience, sometimes professional, life-long career experience in Atlantic salmon. They were very knowledgeable. The committee itself was a great asset to review the wild Atlantic salmon, and in addition we decided to do a consultative approach through Atlantic Canada.
We went to the cities of Moncton, Halifax, St. John's and Quebec City. At each one of those locations we heard from stakeholders who were connected with sport fishing groups, conservation groups, local communities and local rivers. At each location we also invited experts in the field, whether from government, private industry or from universities, to come and speak to the committee. Anyone that was in the area that had expertise in wild Atlantic salmon, we invited them in. We took recommendations online as well as hearing them directly in person.
Overall, we had approximately 80 oral presentations plus many written presentations. We asked the people who were speaking to focus on our mandate areas. Our mandate areas were conservation, enforcement and predation. When I talk about predation, I talk about species that are now changing and are targeting wild Atlantic salmon. Particularly in this case, there were several species of seals, striped bass, a growing population that has been depressed for many years, as well as seabirds and smallmouth bass. We had a number of different components of science within our mandate to review, and finally international fisheries.
When we invited guests to come and speak to us from the general public or from the river groups and conservation groups, we asked that they stick to the concepts in our mandate and put forward recommendations on how we should address these areas to try to help improve the wild Atlantic salmon resource.
Over the course of our work, we consolidated the information put before us and came up with 61 recommendations. I have to say that these recommendations were hashed out in committee meetings after we did our consultations, and in all 61 recommendations a consensus was reached with experts from all the provinces in Eastern Canada and with Bill and me. Those recommendations are in the report, and I believe you have the report in front of you there. I will quickly go over some highlights.
In the conservation area, we talked about additional investment in habitat improvement. A major concern right now is with open ocean fisheries mortality. There are a lot of uncertainties there, but we do know a lot about what is going on in the inland areas and waterways. So we can do things with habitat improvement. We have some power there.
It is the same thing with fishing mortality. While we don't know what is going on in some of the natural mortality situations, we do have some control over the harvest that we set. We looked at harvest suggestions for the recreational fishery, for the non-recreational fishery, maybe incidental fisheries through ocean net fisheries that are not First Nations fisheries, and we looked at some activities of First Nations. We understand there are First Nations food fishery social rights, but there is also a willingness there to address the best fishing practices. We put forward recommendations on those fronts.
Again, the recommendations are in there. For example, on the net fisheries, a number of them are targeting other species but are used as an excuse to get salmon. That is still going on today. Canada can do a little more to address that with some effort.
We talked about enforcement. Any good management plan, any rules without enforcement will just not work. We are putting forward recommendations to strengthen the enforcement and to build partnerships. The partnerships are a trend through the report. There are a number of different volunteer groups, other science groups, and they will all come to the plate and help at any time.
We talk about increased harvest levels for seals and also increased research on the impact of seals and the same for striped bass. When it comes to seabirds, it is more to get a handle on the interaction and do more research there. That is a little more complicated because there are restrictions on harvesting of some of the birds that are of concern.
Finally, smallmouth bass is a concern particularly in one area of the Miramichi River, where there is talk about trying to remove a population that was introduced in there illegally and could cause problems in the system if it gets into the Miramichi River system. We spoke to that.
We talked about some science recommendations. The river stock assessments are the basis for knowing what is going on, so we thought we had to improve those, solidify them — and some are unsure whether they will continue — and also expand them into additional rivers.
We talked about partnerships, where we can collect data from a number of different sources and better ways to collect data. Even basic things like getting reports back from fishermen who buy an angling licence in Newfoundland and in the Maritimes; many of them do not return their licences and the report on their licences, even though that's a requirement. We suggest tweaking some of these things.
We talked about partnerships with others that are involved in the science of salmon in the universities or high- technology activities, like ocean tracking and ecosystem research that is going on by other research groups out there, to involve our salmon interests and collaborate to see what these changes are doing or these ocean-tracking systems are monitoring, and to equate that information back to the salmon scientists so that we can get better information as to what is going on in the bigger situations.
In international fisheries, we have a fishery off Greenland and St. Pierre and Miquelon. The biggest is off Western Greenland. We put recommendations forward there. Our large fish are traveling and mixing in the open oceans, and some of these fisheries are targeting fish from river systems that may be very weak. If we knew that the fish were from a healthy river system, it wouldn't be a problem, but we have no way of knowing that when they're mixing and being targeted by some of these international fisheries.
In addition, we accepted other recommendations, things like the Atlantic salmon policy that is in place and covers a lot of the concepts we talked about. That could be refreshed. It is about six years old, and that was a government policy, to refresh and start implementing it.
To close, the bottom line is that wild Atlantic salmon is a highly valued resource in Eastern Canada. We need to put new investment in to help this resource. It is having a very hard time. We recommended an increased investment through a wild salmon research and innovation fund. We talked about strengthening the partnerships in science, enforcement, data collection and monitoring what is going on in the rivers.
We also recommended the establishment of an Atlantic salmon science and research development group. It doesn't have to be a physical group, as such. It would be worthwhile to have workshops every two or three years, but to have a network group where people can share information, research data and to collaborate to address needs.
We suggested that this investment would have a start and finish period. We talked about maybe 10 years to see if we could make a difference in what does and doesn't work. We suggested there be an arm's-length group to help direct the research priorities and to ensure there is some accountability for the work being done.
Thank you. I will turn it over to my colleague, Bill, who is the vice-chair.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Mr. Roach.
R. William (Bill) Taylor, President, Atlantic Salmon Federation: Thank you. I am Bill Taylor, President of the Atlantic Salmon Federation, and I had the honour of serving as vice-chair of the Minister's Advisory Committee.
We are a conservation and international organization, a charitable organization incorporated in both Canada and the United States. Our membership is throughout North America. Our international headquarters is in St. Andrews, New Brunswick, and we have field offices in Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and one in Maine.
Our principal interest is Atlantic salmon conservation and research, and hopefully recovering the species.
I will speak to some of the specific recommendations that the advisory committee and the Atlantic Salmon Federation feel could be implemented and have a positive effect fairly quickly.
There are 61 recommendations in the advisory committee report. There is a lot there for DFO to work with. I will speak to a number of those specifics that, hopefully, could be introduced fairly quickly.
Regarding the biology of the species, if we are to have a positive impact recovering the species, we have to look at incorporating activities and actions throughout its life history; so in the freshwater as well as in the estuaries and marine environment all the way to Greenland and back.
With respect to the management of salmon fisheries, I want to commend DFO for renewing the live-release-only fishing in the recreational salmon fishery for the Maritimes. It is a hardship for some but the right thing to do considering the state of the resource.
I want to commend Quebec for its recent announcement on its Atlantic salmon management plan. It will go to live release for large salmon in the recreational fisheries with the exception of a few rivers in the far north, and they will also be doing in-season assessments to ensure that any harvests of salmon are taking place only on populations above conservation requirements.
I cannot emphasize enough the importance of Canada introducing more aggressive and effective management practices when it comes to our own fisheries. What we do in Canada, whether it is on the Miramichi or the Margaree or the Grand Cascapédia in Quebec does have international influence.
I can tell you from my tenure on Canada's delegation to the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, NASCO, Greenlanders do look to see what we and other countries are doing, and it does affect how they conduct their own fisheries. Improved salmon management in Canada does have an influence internationally, and it strengthens our hand at NASCO and in bilateral discussions with Greenland and St. Pierre and Miquelon.
In terms of specific recommendations with respect to the salmon fisheries, the catch and release for the Maritimes is done. Quebec's new 10-year plan is in the works; that is progress as well. There was also a recommendation specific to the Labrador resident trout net fishery where a bycatch is allowed for Atlantic salmon, and the recommendation was to eliminate that.
We need to negotiate and sign food, social and ceremonial agreements with First Nations that conduct fisheries long before the season begins. In New Brunswick and the Restigouche River, which is a border river, there is a habit of waiting until the season is well under way before those agreements are in place. Quite often it leads to excessive gill- netting at the front of the season as a lever to try to get DFO into quicker action.
As part of the First Nation negotiations, this was a recommendation that DFO be more creative in looking at how they conduct fisheries management. It is not just a matter of setting a season for gillnets. There are opportunities for selective harvest with trap nets, longer takeout periods. In Labrador, we heard from some of the groups where there are takeout periods during the height of the run so that a good chunk of the salmon run makes it into the river, and they can start fishing again. There are other ways to attack that that we think would have benefit.
The border river, the Restigouche and its tributaries, you have regulations affecting the recreational fishery in New Brunswick and New Brunswick tributaries, and you have Quebec regulations for the Quebec side of the Restigouche, the Matapédia Causapscal and the Patapédia. On one side of the border river, it is total live release for large salmon and grilse; and on the other side of the river, the same river system, same salmon population, not the same regulations.
I have been led to believe that Minister Tootoo is conducting discussions with Minister Lessard, the fish and wildlife minister in Quebec, and hopefully will harmonize the regulations between New Brunswick and Quebec. That was a recommendation of the advisory committee.
With respect to enforcement, we need to make sure there is effective enforcement and enough enforcement personnel on the rivers so that the benefits that accrue from conservation management measures aren't jeopardized.
The recreational Atlantic salmon industry is a big industry for Eastern Canada — Quebec, rural Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador. It is worth something in the order of $150 million. It supports close to 4,000 full-time equivalent jobs. When you think of salmon fishing, it is not full-time jobs; it is seasonal jobs. It is more like 10,000 seasonal workers that depend on a vibrant recreational salmon fishing industry. DFO is the management agency for the fishery.
If you take a look at the budget that DFO has had for Atlantic salmon conservation, research and management, 25 years ago it was $24 million; in 2010 it was $12 million. That is without even factoring in inflation. When the resource needs the most help, DFO has had the fewest resources to do its job.
The recommendation with respect to enforcement for 2016 is to make sure that there is no reduction in enforcement personnel and at the minimum to maintain the budget for enforcement and reverse any reductions that may have been proposed for the coming year. Miramichi is an example. And commit to raising funding levels for federal conservation and protection agencies.
In another recommendation we heard from folks in Newfoundland where there is a real partnership between the Newfoundland provincial wardens and the federal C&P officers. That should also be the case in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
Greg spoke to predation issues — striped bass, seals and birds like cormorants and gannets. The committee had a couple of recommendations specific to predation. More research is needed to determine the real impacts of seals on salmon. Where applicable, we should be looking to assist First Nations who would be perhaps open to reducing their salmon fishery in exchange for increased allocations perhaps for striped bass, which is a predatory species and a real problem in the Miramichi for Atlantic salmon.
Another recommendation with respect to predation and striped bass was to increase the daily and seasonal bag limits for anglers for striped bass. There is a very short season now, and it's only one fish per day.
With respect to research and innovation, at the Atlantic Salmon Federation we have a long history of conducting our own research and partnering with DFO and other international scientists and have pioneered the tracking of salmon at sea. The at-sea survival issue is the 800-pound gorilla when it comes to Atlantic salmon survival.
Our rivers are in pretty good shape. The juvenile populations in the rivers are in pretty good shape. The young salmon smolts that go out to the Labrador Sea or to Greenland are coming back, but their percentage is growing smaller and smaller. Something is happening in the ocean, probably a combination of climate change, predation, the Greenland fishery and so on. There needs to be a concerted, well-funded research program to tackle that, working with groups like the Atlantic Salmon Federation, the Ocean Tracking Network and maybe even partnering between Canada and the U.S. The U.S. has spent an awful lot of money in taking down dams and in salmon conservation, and they have a real interest in what goes on with salmon recovery programs as well. So there may be an opportunity to partner with the U.S. and some of the U.S. scientists with respect to marine research.
We are happy to see the Liberal government come out with $197-plus million for science and innovation and assessment in our marine and freshwater ecosystems, and we are certainly hoping that some of that will find its way to helping Atlantic salmon conservation and investigating this at-sea mortality issue.
With respect to the recommendations in the advisory committee report, a brand new research and innovation fund should be established — and Greg spoke to this — specifically for wild Atlantic salmon for a period of five or ten years, that is well funded and committed to working with other organizations, international scientist groups like ASF and the Ocean Tracking Network, to address this low marine survival issue.
Lastly, the Wild Atlantic Salmon Conservation Policy came into effect in 2009. The goal of the policy is to maintain and restore healthy and diverse salmon populations and their habitat for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of Canada in perpetuity — laudable, obviously. The first principle of the policy is conservation of wild Atlantic salmon. Genetic diversity and their habitats is the highest priority in resource management decision making — again laudable.
The development of the policy entailed significant stakeholder consultations throughout all of Eastern Canada — First Nations, conservation groups, scientists, the provinces. It was due for a five-year review in 2014. That did not happen. In fact, the policy has never been implemented. That is a top priority recommendation of the advisory committee, to make the Wild Atlantic Salmon Conservation Policy work — to fund and implement it.
In conclusion, what I've tried to do is build on what the chairman presented to you. Those are some of the specific recommendations. Certainly it doesn't mean that the other 40 or 50 recommendations are not important, but they will take a longer amount of time. The ones I've spoken to this afternoon could be undertaken in fairly short order and would have a positive impact fairly quickly.
Thank you for your time and interest in the advisory committee's report. Greg and I would be happy to answer your questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor. We do have senators who are ready to ask questions. I will ask Senator McInnis if he would like to start this afternoon. He is the third member of our steering committee. We will hear from Senator McInnis.
Senator McInnis: Thank you for what you do. You sound quite optimistic, and you always do. The number of volunteer hours that the NGOs put in is nothing short of amazing, and I'm not sure the public is aware of the tremendous effort that is put in.
I don't want to be negative at all, but I wonder if we've left it too long. I recall when I was younger, the northern cod and how the demise was imminent and that it took decades for it to come back, and of course the ground fishery. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans employs wonderful people who do good work, but I wonder how high a priority the Atlantic salmon really is to Fisheries and Oceans. In fairness, they have a lot of commercial fishery where it always seems to gain the attention.
Do you really believe that you have the attention of DFO? They were here last week and they sounded very sincere. One of the recommendations was the Wild Atlantic Salmon Research and Innovation Fund, which sounds great, and would be administered by an arm's-length group of partners doing salmon-related work. That is marvellous, if that in fact happens, because it will be run by people who know exactly what is going on.
So I want you to answer this. You sound optimistic. However, when I hear about the ocean, the predators and what has taken place in Greenland, and other serious things that we're losing — the return of salmon — how severe is it and can it be uncovered?
On this fund, I want to ask these quick five questions: How large do you anticipate the fund to be? Where would the funds be applied? Would it cover salaried personnel overseeing the work and enforcement? Would the provinces be involved? Would it cover capital acquisitions such as the douser? I didn't see it in the budget. Was it mentioned in the budget or do you believe it's in the $192 million? That was for science.
Those are a number of questions. I'm sorry about that, but can you talk about that for a bit?
Mr. Taylor: I can. I am the vice-chairman. Maybe both of us can answer that.
Mr. Roach: I'll start off with the commitment from DFO. You are absolutely right; there are multi-million-dollar, hundreds-of-million-dollar commercial fisheries and everybody wants a piece of the DFO science budget, a piece of the enforcement budget, management time. With salmon, it's tough. There are a lot of people in the general population that are very keen on salmon, and the volunteer groups are tireless in promoting the interests of salmon. But from a commercial fishery perspective, it doesn't have the same focus as lobster would have, as the failed groundfish and recovery of groundfish would have, or maybe even the shrimp, and the fights for the resource. You guys have heard it a million times.
Having said that, the scientists who are still within DFO working on salmon are extremely passionate, and they were extremely helpful to the committee through the entire period of our work. We started off with an overview, and they were available and provided information at all points. I think they are certainly at the ready to participate in any future additional work that may happen and to network as they go forward.
Yes, we did talk about a new amount of money, mainly because of the priorities within DFO. If you have to get money from within, then someone else is going to lose it, and that's where the fights will start that you describe. How can you put money to salmon when there is a commercial fishery that's employing so many people and you're taking it from those folks? That's why we looked at the new fund.
We also looked at the idea of partnering with a lot of other players out there, such as universities, looking at the ecosystem work that is being done out there on the bigger scale, what is happening with warming and species mix changes and ocean tracking. So this can be salmon focused but also spread well beyond that.
We think there is an opportunity to have a salmon fund that would contribute to a lot of the bigger questions and also the greater good of the ecosystem health in the rivers and understanding what is going on in the ecosystems out there in the ocean world. It could be a species mixing that's going on.
We heard about and talked about some of the ecological work, such as changes in the herring mix, the groundfish mix and the tuna mix. All these species mixes that were normally there are different now, and this may have an impact on salmon. They may be looking for food they want and it's different now; or the environment and the temperatures may have changed, so that it's not working for salmon, like it's not working for some of the other species out there. These big questions are not only for salmon; they're for a lot of other species, and we need to know that as the environment is changing.
That's a long-winded answer to say that I think DFO is there to support, but they have to follow their instructions from the scientists and managers. I think if there was a dedicated fund, they would be quick to get on board.
I think there is nothing DFO officers would like better that to be doing enforcement and catching poachers who are selling illegal fish and salmon. We heard about these things. If they had the resources to do that, I think they would quickly engage and be passionate.
The last thing you talked about is what to apply the money to. I think it would be a lot of those things we talked about. DFO doesn't have to own it or lead it in every case, but to be a partner. The volunteer groups that you mentioned will help with data collection, and some of the university and international science groups would gladly participate in research work.
I guess government could lead by having resources available and then setting up the network and others could do the work. The arm's-length group as the oversight group could ensure the fund continues to be applied to salmon or salmon-related research. When budgets get tight, priorities are considered and money could end up going to another area.
I'll turn it over to Bill.
Mr. Taylor: The first question, basically, is there hope? You told a sad cod story. I have been in the salmon conservation business professionally for almost 30 years, and there is definitely hope.
I think that we are seeing a shift in the Atlantic salmon's range. If you could draw a line across the Eastern Canadian map, the Miramichi and across Cape Breton, the north half of that is in pretty good shape. Actually, the farther north you go, the better shape it is in. Last year, in Newfoundland and Labrador, it was very close if not the best year on record as far as salmon returns to Newfoundland and Labrador rivers. The Miramichi, Restigouche, Gaspé, the North Shore of Quebec and the Gulf rivers are all much better than the year before.
Everything south of that line is basically hanging on by the skin of its teeth. Most of those populations of salmon, whether the Inner Bay of Fundy, the Outer Bay of Fundy, the South Shore of Nova Scotia, if they are not listed in the Species at Risk Act, they are designated as threatened. Those are the areas closest to urbanization and salmon aquaculture and more forestry and agricultural practices. It's death by a thousand cuts, I suppose, more pressure on the salmon resource.
There definitely is hope. It may be that the salmon's range map is changing. We are going to see whether or not we can ever recover the Inner Bay of Fundy rivers, the Saint John River, some of the Nova Scotia rivers, which are all wonderful salmon rivers. The verdict is still out. There are still lots of good salmon rivers and lots of people who rely on the salmon fishing industry for employment. The First Nations rely on it for an important part of their cultural, social and food needs. Yes, there is definitely hope.
The research and innovation fund could be a big part of that. I'm hopeful and have been led to believe that there is a big chunk of funding for Atlantic salmon within the $197.1 million, and it is important that it be led at arm's length from DFO.
DFO will have an important and meaningful role to play. Some of the best salmon scientists in the world are working within DFO. We had several who made presentations to the advisory committee.
There is also opportunity to leverage private money. There are some very interested private partners in the Maritimes and Eastern Canada that would be willing to put money up: University of New Brunswick, Dalhousie University, the Ocean Tracking Network and industry. And when we were looking at the marine survival issues, tracking salmon at sea, there is opportunity for a joint venture with the United States as well.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for the presentation and being here.
Being from New Brunswick and living approximately 30 kilometres from the Miramichi, I am aware of the salmon issues in that area. Out of the 61 recommendations that you mentioned, there are a few that have already been put into force or they are working on it.
One that was actually announced last week by the DFO minister was the implication of the catch and release for that area, in order to try and preserve and build the wild Atlantic salmon. As you are probably aware, that was well seen by many but not so well seen by others. The salmon fishery, specifically along the Miramichi River, is of high value for economic, environmental and cultural reasons, and it is important we have it for years to come.
In your opinion, how long do you think it would take for DFO to continue doing catch and release in order for the quantity of salmon to increase and ensure that we have salmon for many years to come in our end of the country?
Mr. Taylor: It's the Gulf region, obviously Miramichi and Restigouche, but it is also the Northumberland Strait rivers, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. Live release, catch and release by anglers is not the sole solution. It's far from it. Anglers are a small part of the problem, but it was the right thing to do in light of the fragile state of the resource.
One of the recommendations that came to us from many people was that DFO doesn't have the resources to assess enough rivers. There are almost 1,000 Atlantic salmon rivers in Canada and we have assessments for fewer than 70 of them.
Thankfully we have assessments for the Miramichi and Restigouche, which are two important and renowned Atlantic salmon rivers. In 2014, the Northwest Miramichi only met 21 per cent of the minimum needed to sustain the species. The main Southwest Miramichi met about 60 per cent and the Restigouche was about 60 per cent.
It was a much better year in 2015 than in 2014, but the Northwest Miramichi still only met 82 per cent, which was a huge improvement over the 21 per cent the year before. The main Southwest Miramichi met 92 per cent, which is better but still less than the minimum number the scientists and biologists tell us that you need to sustain the species.
That minimum number, that conservation limit, that's like the "empty'' on your gas tank; you want to be well above empty before you start harvesting fish. The main stem of the Restigouche did meet its spawning target last year but all of its tributaries did not.
When the Gulf region, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are able to manage their recreational salmon fishery more like Quebec, where it's done on a river-by-river basis and assessments on a whole bunch of salmon rivers and they have the capacity to determine the health of a run at the drop of a hat, if it looks like the runs are in trouble, they can go to catch and release like they did in 2014 right away.
In Quebec this year, they are starting the season with catch and release and will do a midseason assessment in July. If there is enough fish for a harvest, anglers may be allowed to take one or two salmon.
There are two or three moving parts to your question, Senator Poirier. It's not just meeting that minimum conservation limit; it's being able to ensure that when we sell 15,000 or 20,000 salmon licences in New Brunswick and there are only two or three rivers above the conservation limit, that all the anglers don't go to those two rivers and take too many fish. It's a matter of moving the way we manage the recreational salmon fishery more in line like Quebec or even Newfoundland, which is kind of in between, where they classify the rivers.
Hopefully, if DFO can make progress towards river-by-river management in the next year or two and we have accurate assessments and we're agile enough to do those in-stream assessments, if there is a surplus of salmon there should be nothing wrong biologically and with respect to conservation. If there is a surplus to spawning needs, there is nothing wrong with taking a few fish, but you have to be able to manage it.
Senator Poirier: Is DFO looking at the possibility of doing it river by river in our area too?
Mr. Taylor: I'm aware that they are looking into it. I don't know if it's a year away, two years away. I don't know what's realistic, but they are looking at it seriously.
Mr. Roach: I will add a couple of points. That particular approach, the hook and release for the Gulf rivers, was controversial at meetings and controversial within our committee, but conservation trumped the option of being able to take a few fish. Now there was a clear understanding that there would be a review, and when the rivers looked like they were strong enough, as Bill mentioned, then by all means that option would be considered.
We also spoke to scientists and recommended a new approach, called the precautionary approach. DFO scientists are developing it now. The idea is to have a lower limit or a limit level at which there would be no harvest of any type, whether it would be food, social, ceremonial, recreational fishery. Basically that's the danger zone. Then there's a middle zone where there would be some opportunity, but you're still in a growth and recovery mode and want to be very cautious. Then, after the stock reaches a certain level there would be more opportunities for harvest or utilizing the fish.
It basically would allow an option to stop all risks for mortality, something in the middle, and then when the stock gets in really good shape, there are opportunities for other uses. So they are developing that.
We made recommendations for more sampling to work towards a river-by-river management scheme because without that, it's very difficult and that's an advantage that they have in Quebec for sure.
In fact, when the committee went to Newfoundland after our initial recommendations, they thought that the goal of the committee was to put everything to hook and release. We had to swim against that stream for the first couple of hours, and then people realized we weren't just there to shut down the harvest of recreational salmon. The committee was looking for much bigger pictures in conservation.
Senator Poirier: My second question is following a recommendation. One of the recommendations was for the reduction and eventual elimination of salmon net fisheries off St. Pierre and Miquelon, then to eliminate the commercial fishery altogether. Why is the total commercial fishing ban recommended for St. Pierre and Miquelon but not for Greenland?
Mr. Taylor: Greenland has an internationally protected treaty right to the fish that are swimming in their waters. For salmon that go to Greenland from Canada in any given year, the harvest at Greenland is between 70 per cent and 90 per cent Canadian fish — North American — but there are so few U.S. fish that they're basically all Canadian. Last year I believe that 82 per cent of the catch at Greenland was Canadian fish.
Our fish go there and spend two years feeding on capelin, krill and sand eels in Greenland waters. The waters around Greenland where those fisheries take place are just as important to the salmon's life cycle as the headwaters of the Miramichi or Restigouche or Grand Cascapédia, whereas in St. Pierre and Miquelon the fish that are caught are simply travelling by there in a two-week period on their way back to the spawn in the Margaree or the Miramichi. So they're not spending an important part of their life cycle at St. Pierre and Miquelon; they are caught as they migrate by on their way home.
We would love to see the Greenland fishery reduced to a very small subsistence-only level. In fact, in 1993-94 the Atlantic Salmon Federation bought out the Greenland salmon fishery; we actually bought the quota and they did not fish. From 2002 to 2011, paying fishermen not to fish did not work, and we learned from that. We set up an economic development fund for the fishermen. Only salmon fishermen could apply for funding for small projects. We helped them get a lumpfish roe fishery started; we helped them do some value added for snow crab. There were some other projects in ecotourism as well.
We're in private sector negotiations right now with the Greenlanders towards another similar agreement. We're hoping the U.S. will be a partner, as they have in the past. When I speak with DFO Canada, we have a policy not to compensate commercial fishermen in that way, which is fine; that's the lay of the land and we move on.
Coming back to your question, Senator Poirier, there is a big difference between what goes on at Greenland and St. Pierre and Miquelon.
The good news, though, is the actions, like live release, that were taken last year did have a positive effect in discussions at Greenland. In 2014 the Greenland harvest was about 95 tonnes of fish, and last year the harvest was something on the order of 57 or 58 tonnes; still too many fish but almost half of what it had been the year before.
Canada showing some leadership does have an effect. In fact, we're looking at probably a reduced Greenland fishery again for 2016.
Mr. Roach: I will also stress that Canada does allow First Nations and Aboriginal and Inuit folks to have access to food, social and ceremonial wild Atlantic salmon, and the harvest in Greenland is much the same. We put strong recommendations forward to put an end to the factory fishery in Greenland. It's pretty hard to have a different set of standards for our approach and the Greenland approach, but we still would like to have it reduced because if it's a mixed stock, it could be coming from rivers in very rough shape.
Now, for St. Pierre and Miquelon, the south coast of Newfoundland is the worst portion of Newfoundland for the whole salmon resource, plus that fishery is intercepting fish that are going back into the Gulf where some of the rivers are in bad shape. So there is really no justification for those folks to intercept fish that really are just passing their boundaries.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you for your presentations. It's quite helpful but a little depressing.
I'm particularly concerned with the wild Atlantic salmon conservation policy. A lot of work obviously went into that and nothing was ever done. I don't want to see the recommendations in this report go down that same road.
I'm happy with catch and release, and I'm hopeful that that's going to happen. It would be good if that happens. The purpose of what we're doing here in this committee is to review what came up with the advisory committee and then see what the status is. So far I don't get a big impression there is any kind of status change. I think that maybe was where Senator McInnis was going.
It's a great report, has a lot of really good things in it, and I can't for the life of me see why some of these things can't be implemented. You talk about the predation with the seals; you talk about opening up the bass fishery. These are not huge negotiation things; they should be able to be accomplished.
Do you have any idea why things go so incredibly slowly? I know what you mean, but I would be very interested in hearing that. I don't mean to put you in a bad spot, somebody has to speak up and speak out.
Mr. Roach: Well, from a very high level, the committee mandate was to review and recommend. We delivered, and then we go off to our other activities.
Fortunately, many of the members of that committee, including Bill, are very active in salmon, so they can continue and will continue to try to keep people's feet to the fire.
You make the point about some of the recommendations not being money things. They're changing policy a little bit or maybe changing practices that exist or enforcing rules on land use and water use that are already there, maybe not by the federal government but by provincial governments, and a bit of cooperation could address them.
Obviously we share your concern that it would be great if many of these were acted on sooner rather than later. We understand that there are always pressures for additional resources and money. I guess we can ask and, hopefully, it will become a priority.
Mr. Taylor: Greg mentioned one of the fundamental principles contained in the advisory report, namely the establishment — whether it is the advisory committee itself, a new group or a smaller group — of an arm's-length group that would follow through on the advisory committee's report and hold DFO's feet to the fire, so to speak.
The recommendations are there. I agree 110 per cent with you, Senator Stewart Olsen. There are many of them. I tried to summarize several of them today, in particular the ones that we see as urgent and that could, without a lot of red tape, be implemented without causing a lot of hardship or costing a lot of money.
We would like to see more action. Over the past few weeks the New Brunswick newspapers had stories about catch and release. That is but one recommendation, but it took on a whole life of its own. It will help but it will not solve the salmon crisis. We have to get to some of these big ticket items implemented.
Having said that, I do have a sense of encouragement. We presented the report to then Minister Gail Shea at the end of July. We then had the election and things were put on hold. Minister Tootoo just took office in early January. Things are happening and happening quicker than I have seen them happen in a long, long time. However, the job is not done; far from it. It is an encouraging first few steps and we are encouraged by that.
The fundamental thing about making the advisory committee's recommendations actually work would be establishing either a whole committee, a subset or some new group that would follow through and ensure they are meeting with DFO on a regular basis. The provinces would have a stake in this as well, that is, in making sure that the right things happen so that as many of these recommendations as possible can be put into place as quickly as possible.
Senator Stewart Olsen: It is helpful to have that on record. That is why I asked the questions. We have to keep on this.
I noticed with interest the Quebec plan that you were speaking of. They have some live release, but I am surprised that there is nothing on the Moisie or the Natashquan, which are huge salmon rivers. They monitor river by river, you are saying. These are big sport fishing industries on those rivers. Are you convinced that the salmon health on those rivers is good?
Mr. Taylor: No.
Senator Stewart Olsen: That's what I thought.
Mr. Taylor: I don't mind elaborating on that. I'm very pleased with the progress that the Quebec government has made — and it is Quebec that manages salmon in that province — and the speed at which it moved to get to live release, with the exception of the Côte-Nord rivers, which are the Ungava region; the Causapscal, a tributary of the Matapedia; the Patapédia, a tributary of the Restigouche; the Natashquan; and the Moisie. There are four or five rivers in which they will still be allowed to take large salmon. There is good assessment information for a few of those rivers but not all of them.
The precautionary approach would have been to implement the same management regime for the other rivers as for the rest of the province.
There are 120 Atlantic salmon rivers in Quebec, and now there are only four, five or six where you will be allowed to take a large salmon.
There are also discussions taking place between the province and DFO about the reduction in the number of tags from seven to four tags, with only one tag being permitted for a large salmon.
This isn't in defence of the Quebec model at all, but the Gulf rivers, with the exception of the Restigouche, the Newfoundland rivers and even the Labrador rivers, are predominantly grilse rivers, so the bulk of the fish coming back are grilse; whereas the Gaspé rivers, the North Shore rivers of Quebec, the bulk of the salmon coming back are large two or three sea winter fish with few grilse.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you for that. That's interesting.
The Deputy Chair: Before I move to a question from Senator Dagenais, I would like to welcome Senator Black to the Fisheries Committee this evening.
Senator Black: Thank you very much. I am pitching in for Senator Raine. I am not very effective, as the Senate just rose, so I am sorry I am late. I am very disappointed that I missed your presentation because being from Alberta, I don't know a lot about this.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I have two quick questions. I would like to get back to determining the status of the salmon stocks, which you mentioned earlier. How long do you think it will take to determine the status of the wild Atlantic salmon stocks? Furthermore, do you have an idea of how much this process would cost?
[English]
Mr. Roach: Right now the approach for determining the status of the stocks in the various river systems is to do an estimate on the returns. Based on the examination of the returns and the egg production, then it's an estimate of how many eggs will be needed in the available habitat. Then it would be an estimate of what the minimum conservation target would be. That is done in individual river systems in the Quebec model and it's done in regions for using a couple of test or indicator rivers in the other areas of Atlantic Canada.
That component of it is pretty straightforward. There is the data collection of the returning stock and from that, the size and the numbers of the fish, how much habitat is there, an estimate of the egg production and how much egg production is needed. You can then do an assessment of whether the river or the system is meeting the egg conservation target.
A couple of the problems that we have in the bigger conservation picture is what's going on beyond the river system. Sometimes the rivers seem to be producing the smolts and they are going to sea, but they are not coming back. So you get high production or a reasonable production in the river system, but one to three years later the fish are not returning. The question is: What's happening in the open ocean? Ocean mortality is the uncertain part. I guess there are a lot of components that need to be studied to determine what's going on there. Maybe we haven't pointed a finger at the components that are really having the impact yet. It could be changing temperatures, species mix or fisheries that are intercepting the salmon that are not reporting and we are not aware of yet, or it could be the existing fisheries. There is that side of it.
How long that will take and how much money and resources are very difficult questions. However, the move in the direction of looking at what's happening in the ocean is what we are recommending in the report and working with other research groups in partnerships, such as the ocean tracking people, because they see where the fish are going. It is a fabulous program. They can tag fish and see where they show up on their way to Greenland for feeding and on the way back.
There are other studies on the ecology in the open oceans to see the changing species mix and how that relates to temperature at different depths to see how that is fitting in with salmon as well.
So those bigger questions have to be addressed in collaboration with all the other open ocean research going on there. The idea is to get salmon as a player there, a contributor with the partners, and also in the list of questions of what these changes are doing to the salmon population.
Those are the two sides. The direct river one is not so complicated; we just need more of it to hopefully get as close to a river-by-river assessment as possible. The open ocean questions are more complex and would need perhaps more time and more resources. We should partner with all research programs out there because we could be getting answers now that are directed at other species that would really help with salmon.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I have another quick question. In Quebec, there are quite a few sport fishers, and they do not always release their catch. They can always claim to not be aware of the law, or the problem could be that we have no means of deterring them.
Can you give some examples of how we can encourage people to release the fish they catch, or at least to deter them from keeping the fish?
[English]
Mr. Roach: I'll start with that one, and then perhaps Bill can put some information forward.
The report focused on two approaches to enforcement: One is deterrence and the other is education.
Deterrence really works. If people fear they're going to get caught and that there will be ramifications, they will be a little more cautious about doing their illegal activity. If there are no enforcement officers or even other anglers around that may be able to report the activity, in some areas they will continue until it is no longer economically viable for them to do it. But even having a presence there or when the officers do lay charges and seize gear, vehicles, boats and end up in court with fines, it definitely makes a difference. With just DFO officers, or provincial officers or Native guardians showing up, the word gets around in the communities. Having a partnership of other users reporting to these enforcement agencies has a major impact.
We encouraged all of these sorts of things, but having the old-fashioned enforcement officers there that lay charges makes a huge impact.
The education part is to get out there and make sure people know the rules because some don't for different river systems, but I agree with you that most likely do.
Also, let the people that are buying illegal fish know that this species is in trouble in certain areas and that poaching is part of that trouble. People then might say, "Wait, number one, I don't want to get caught; number two, this is not good for the resource.'' That may be a little pie in the sky, but every bit of public information through the media or any tools that we can use to make the general public more knowledgeable about the stresses that the resource is under, and also the risks of buying illegally caught salmon contrary to conservation, could be helpful.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I do not know whether you are aware, but what worries me is that, in Quebec, there are fewer conservation officers since the government made budget cuts. Naturally, people think that they will not get caught. As you also mentioned, many people buy contraband fish. As we always say, if there were no receivers, there would be no thieves. The two go together. I am not sure whether you realize that there are also fewer enforcement officers. We hope that this fact will not encourage sport fishers to keep their catch. I can tell you that I am very familiar with this matter.
[English]
Senator McInnis: I think this report is excellent, and you have a number of wonderful recommendations. I probably shouldn't offer this advice, but I will.
You have, in your midst, some of the most wonderful organizations that exist — all those people involved in angling and hunting. This report is an important one. You really do have to lobby. You have probably heard that before and probably do it on a regular basis, but politicians are funny. Sometimes they listen, particularly when you have them in your midst. I would suggest, sooner than later, that you have the deputy minister in for lunch and have the minister at your Atlantic salmon fisheries annual dinner and banquet. Have him there and meet with him in the afternoon. Do it before the budget so that you have your say, because this is important. It's extremely important and a lot of people are relying on it. You put — I know this — a lot of time into bringing this about.
Now, I want to go to an entirely different subject because it is the thing that I hear more about in Nova Scotia than any other thing. As I mentioned to you two gentlemen earlier, last year my wife and I acquired a side-by-side four- wheeler, where we can hold lands as we go through the forests. One of the great controversies is what's taking place in our forests. I'm not against clear-cutting; I just don't know enough about it. It's being done, and I presume that they are doing it because they know what they are doing. However, the complaints that I hear — lack of culverts, these huge harvesters going through brooks, streams, rivers — I see them and think to myself, "Who is enforcing this? Who is providing the education?'' It's not that difficult to enforce because we have access to the interior forests that we never had before because we have all these roads right across the province.
So how can we prevent this and how damning is it? Does anyone know? You guys look after the freshwater. You're doing everything you can with the ocean, but you're the freshwater people, and the habitats and ecosystems. If this is taking place all over the forest, then who is watching this? Who is monitoring it? They could come with me and I could take them 200 or 300 kilometres a day and point it out so that they can do it. But are there people doing it? That's the question.
Mr. Roach: We flag that; that's absolutely true. Rules and land use and forestry practices are in place today and are dramatically improved over what they were in the day, with the riparian zone next to the waterways to protect from fast runoff and also to provide shade. There are some rules there. They could probably stand some improvement if you wanted to focus on fish habitat over other priorities, but even to start with the ones that are there today would be very good.
There are some that are in force, but I think you make the same point that we make in the report: We have the tools there now in land use practices and land use regulations, but they have to be enforced. There is no question about that. Sometimes that lands with provincial agencies; sometimes DFO can trump the activity as well. The tools are there; it is just a matter of making sure they are enforced.
Senator McInnis: Under this funding arrangement, if it comes, could you partner with them?
Mr. Roach: There is partnering today and some of it is very effective in all jurisdictions. I think there just has to be more of it.
Bill made reference to the Newfoundland situation, where the provincial conservation officers work closely with DFO. In Nova Scotia the provincial officers work closely with DFO as well for trout, and salmon on the north coast — Inverness County and Northumberland Strait — but for trout, all through the rest of the province. There is that collaboration.
Again, that is quite strong, but both agencies have their priorities and they have to put their resources elsewhere. That's the idea of having some dedicated salmon funds and a group to oversee it to ensure it is being utilized in the proper fashion.
Your point about land use practices, whether it is farming, forestry or even water use, we speak to that in the report. There are some opportunities there.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Are the draggers doing any damage inadvertently to the salmon stock? I am thinking on the high seas when they are out dragging for other stock. Are they picking them up in their nets? I don't know if you would ever know, actually, but I wondered.
Mr. Roach: There is no doubt in my mind that commercial fishing activity has had an impact and may still have an impact. Draggers fish on the bottom. The salmon are more pelagic in the water column. There were reports that we had about capelin fishing, purse seiners that would just target capelin. If they go into bays where salmon may be heading toward the rivers, there is a risk there. Historically, some of the herring weirs and fish traps would certainly have an impact.
Although I haven't had experience with cod traps, I know from Nova Scotia's experience with fish traps that there was always a problem to ensure that the salmon bycatch was released, and enforcing that becomes an issue. I don't know about cod traps in Newfoundland, but I can't see why they wouldn't catch migrating salmon as well.
We focused in the report on bait nets. There are bait net licences issued all around Eastern Canada. A lot of bait was for invertebrate fisheries — lobsters or crab — or it might have been bait for longline fisheries.
If those nets are showing up, interestingly, around the times when salmon are moving in the rivers and in the areas around the rivers, that is a pretty good indication that they may very well be targeting salmon. We provided recommendations to address these fisheries where there is a risk for bycatch, and should the bait licences even exist now. If there are no fisheries that need the bait, why are we having net fisheries out there that could potentially be intercepting salmon? And even to pay attention to where these nets are being set may do some good.
Senator Stewart Olsen: And when.
Mr. Roach: Yes, and when. Maybe people will think, "They are watching me now. I won't even bother setting that.'' So being aware and addressing these things.
As far as draggers, I don't think —
Senator Stewart Olsen: But they are taking the salmon feed?
Mr. Roach: Well, there are things going on with the changes in other species. We have heard reports about cover species, like large numbers of gaspereau. If a couple of salmon smolts are going out in the whole school and there is a bunch of striped bass waiting to eat them on the way, when you are in a group of 1 to 1,000, your risk is not so bad. But if the gaspereau are not there and it's just salmon heading out, then there are higher risks. These sorts of things may be going on out there as well. The ecosystem studies might shed some light on what's going on with salmon.
Mr. Taylor: The only thing I would add to that is there was a specific recommendation in the report. It's not a huge dragger fishery, but the only fishery that I am aware of on the East Coast of Canada — and maybe even in Canada — that allows a bycatch is the Labrador resident trout net fishery. Residents of Labrador are able to apply for and receive a licence that allows them to set nets in a river and catch 50 trout, and they get three tags for tagging salmon as a legitimate bycatch. The fisheries that Greg referred to with a bycatch, if I am fishing mackerel or cod, I am supposed to throw the salmon back dead or alive.
In Labrador you are allowed to keep salmon. We heard from a lot of people in Labrador that it is not about the 50 trout they get. They set their nets to target the salmon and the bycatch, so that recommendation must be implemented right now and it will save a lot of salmon. We also heard there are similar problems along the North Shore of Quebec as well.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Yes, I know that for sure.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for your presentations. On behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, I would like to commend both of you for the work you have done on the advisory committee and the work you are doing going forward to help re-establish this important fishery to our Atlantic region. Thank you all.
I would like to ask the committee, if you would give me a moment, for a motion to proceed in camera, if I could, please.
Senator Stewart Olsen: So moved.
The Deputy Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)