Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue No. 3 - Evidence - April 12, 2016
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 12, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 6 p.m. to examine issues relating to the federal government's current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening. My name is Fabian Manning, senator from Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm pleased to chair this evening's meeting. Before I give the floor to the witnesses, I would like to ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Baker: George Baker, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga from Ontario.
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine from B.C.
Senator Hubley: Elizabeth Hubley, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier, New Brunswick.
Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton, Ontario.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen, New Brunswick.
Senator McInnis: Tom McInnis, Nova Scotia.
The Chair: The committee is commencing its study on issues related to the federal government's current and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans. The topic under consideration with our first panel of witnesses this evening is with regard to the decline of stocks of wild Atlantic salmon on the East Coast of Canada.
We are pleased to welcome several representatives of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I will ask you to please introduce yourselves.
Kevin Stringer, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: My name is Kevin Stringer. I'm the Assistant Deputy Minister for Ecosystems and Fisheries Management.
Trevor Swerdfager, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Oceans Science, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: I'm Trevor Swerdfager. I'm the Assistant Deputy Minister for Science.
[Translation]
Gérald Chaput, Coordinator, Advisory Services, Science Branch (Gulf Region), Fisheries and Oceans Canada: My name is Gérald Chaput and I am the Coordinator of Advisory Services, Science Branch, Gulf Region, in Moncton.
[English]
Bhagwant Sandhu, Executive Director, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: I'm Bhagwant Sandhu, Executive Director of Fisheries Management.
The Chair: Welcome, and thank you for taking the time to join us here this evening.
I understand that Mr. Chaput has some opening remarks. Would that be correct?
Mr. Stringer: Yes, he does, and I'm going to make a couple of opening remarks and introduce it, if that's okay.
I'll start by thanking you very much for taking on this study and this topic in particular. It really is an honour to be here and to answer any questions that you have and provide you with some foundational information on Atlantic salmon.
Atlantic salmon is often referred to as the "king of fish.'' It really is an iconic species. It is an important stock, an important fishery for Canada.
Spawning in over a thousand rivers in Eastern Canada, Atlantic salmon are fished for food, social and ceremonial purposes by indigenous peoples and recreational fisheries in Atlantic Canada and Quebec. It contributes significantly to the Canadian economy. It's a very complex fishery to manage but a really important one.
Stocks have declined. In Eastern Canada, total abundance of Atlantic salmon at sea prior to marine exploitation, our estimate is the total number of salmon was around 2 million. It's not as big a number as many think. Presently, it's estimated at about 600,000 fish.
In 2014, the returns in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and P.E.I. were among the lowest on record. Only 30 per cent of the assessed rivers met or exceeded what we have established as conservation limits. The department has responded to the situation with a variety of management measures, one of which was to establish the Minister's Advisory Committee last year.
We also reduced daily limits and season bag limits. We established mandatory catch-and-release fishing in areas where it had not been in place before. We closed a number of rivers where conservation measures were not being met. We put restrictions on commercial fisheries to stop or minimize bycatch of salmon — there are no commercial fisheries for Atlantic salmon — including requirements to modify fishing gear. The full moratorium on commercial fishing has been in place since 2000.
There is a bright spot. It seems the further north you go, the better it is, but the reality is in the north part of Newfoundland and off Labrador, returns have been good. In 2014, returns in Labrador were near record high, driven by the increase in rivers in northern Labrador in particular. These rivers have consistently exceeded conservation requirements over the last decade. However, the status of the stock on the south coast of Newfoundland is not quite as positive.
In 2015, particularly after the challenging year we had in 2014 — we had seen a number of challenging years and 2014 was particularly bad — the Minister's Advisory Committee on Atlantic Salmon was launched to provide advice on ways to help reverse the trend of the declining returns. The committee met with 78 different indigenous groups, non- governmental associations and industry stakeholders, and also received many inputs.
The final report was done in July of last year, with sixty-one recommendations. I'll speak at the end of Gérald's presentation about our initial thoughts on that, but I can say it pointed to a number of issues. It didn't actually say, "Here is the one issue around the decline.'' It said there were a number of issues, and it made a set of recommendations and really a program of work that we'll speak to in a bit.
We do have a short deck presentation by Gérald. Gérald is, as he said, the coordinator for the Centre for Science Advice in the Gulf Region. He is also our expert on Atlantic salmon. He's a world renowned expert. We're lucky to have him and really pleased to have him do a presentation and to answer three questions that you asked or that we understand were of interest to the committee: An overview of the state of the Atlantic salmon stocks; a description of the management zones and how we manage and what restrictions we have; and some thoughts — and I'll do this part — on our initial response to the Minister's Advisory Committee.
Gérald?
[Translation]
Mr. Chaput: Honourable senators, I will give my presentation in both English and French. You have received the information in both languages. Please do not hesitate to ask your questions in English or French.
[English]
I will make the presentation in both English and French just to go through different parts. If you have questions in either language, I would be happy to take them and respond.
I won't go through all the details. Kevin already introduced the status of Atlantic salmon in Eastern Canada. I just want to touch on a few points about the animal itself so that we have a common framework for understanding this animal and where we stand now.
Atlantic salmon, as Kevin said, is a highly prized fish in Eastern Canada, in the Maritimes, Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec. It's sought by a lot of people in terms of Aboriginal fisheries, recreational fisheries and commercial at the time.
I want to emphasize that Atlantic salmon actually is a freshwater fish. It needs fresh water to survive. It spawns in fresh water. It goes to sea to grow, but it doesn't have to go to sea to grow. It can spend its entire life cycle in fresh water. What is therefore critical for salmon is healthy, freshwater ecosystems.
When it goes sea, it faces a lot of threats. We feel that right now, the threat to Atlantic salmon in terms of abundance — if we're talking about the Maritimes, Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec — is marine mortality. We are producing salmon in the rivers, they are going to sea, but very few are of them coming back compared to what we had in 1970.
It's a very important point. It is a freshwater animal, and we must maintain the rivers in healthy conditions for this fish to survive.
The other point I want to make is if we talk about Atlantic salmon, if you're talking about in Newfoundland and Quebec, we're talking about the same animal, but it has certain differences. For example, they spend two to eight years in fresh water to grow. That's juveniles. They hatch in the spring, and they will spend two years in the Maritime provinces — as much as eight years in Labrador — before they grow to be large enough to go to sea. They go to sea at about 12 to 18 centimetres, or 4 to 6 inches. That's how big the animal is after eight years in Labrador, before it goes to the ocean.
When they go to the ocean, they spend one year at sea, perhaps, growing, feeding — they grow quickly — or they will spend two or three years at sea growing even larger.
So in Newfoundland and the Maritime provinces, people talk about grilse or small salmon. These are animals that have spent one year at sea and then they come back to spawn. They are adults, a lot of them are males and they are ready to reproduce, but they only need one year to come back. They come back at 54 to 60 centimetres, 23 to 24 inches long.
Senator Eaton: Four, five or six pounds.
Mr. Chaput: Yes. They leave 4 to 6 inches long, and a year later they'll come back 4 to 6 pounds. They grow quite rapidly. If they spend two years at sea, they will come back at 8 to 10 pounds. If they spend three years, they will come back even larger.
In the Maritimes and Quebec, we have mixtures of both these grilse, the small salmon, and the larger ones, what we call multi-sea-winter salmon. Quebec has a lot of large multi-sea-winter fish.
If we look at the island of Newfoundland, except for the southwest coast of Newfoundland, south of Corner Brook all the way to Port Aux Basques, there are basically grilse rivers. They produce primarily small salmon. They smolt, go to sea, and they come back almost essentially as a small salmon.
There are some differences in biology in the animal across Canada, which are very important when we look at management measures and survival and so on. We just want to make the point that the salmon is very diverse across Canada, and it has consequences for how we manage them and how they survive at sea.
In the presentation, I won't go very much into detail. Kevin already addressed the point that if we look at how abundant Atlantic salmon is, it's a salmon but it's not a Pacific salmon. It's more like a trout because they don't die after they spawn. They can spawn many times when they come back to the rivers. They spend the winter in the river. They will go out to sea and feed again. If they survive, they will come back to spawn again. They can do that repeatedly. Pacific salmon come in to spawn and they die. They do it once and that's it. Atlantic salmon can do it many times.
The other point is that Atlantic salmon are really not as abundant as Pacific salmon. As I said, the best estimates we have is maybe in the 1970s when stocks were quite abundant. There were maybe 2 million animals at most in the ocean. The whole North Atlantic comes from Eastern Canada. Compare that to Pacific salmon on the West Coast. When we think about the Fraser and some of the sockeye runs we have, we are talking about tens of millions of animals. That's one river, one species. For Atlantic salmon, there are 2 million overall for all of Eastern Canada, so a less abundant animal over many rivers.
The abundance has suffered, and we have noted in the last 30 years an important decline in sea survival. They are simply not surviving as well. We know that because we can actually count how many juveniles go to the ocean in some rivers. We count how many go out and we count how many come back. We know from that ratio how many survive. We have tracked some rivers beginning in the 1970s.
Western Arm Brook in northern Newfoundland is one of our longest running rivers. The first program started in 1971. Every year, Fisheries and Oceans counted how many smolts went to sea and how many came back, and we can calculate survival rates from that. With that time series, we can see a decline in survival rates in that river over the last 40 years.
That is the kind of information we use to say that the problem seems to be in the ocean, where something has changed in terms of dynamics.
In terms of our fisheries, in the graphs that were distributed to you, at the best we landed perhaps 2,500 tonnes in the peak years of the fishery of Atlantic salmon. That's when the commercial fishery was active, both in the Maritimes and Newfoundland and Labrador. Now in the last two to three years, we are landing perhaps 150 tonnes of fish. We are harvesting in the range of about 60,000 or 70,000 animals. That is the total take in the various fisheries.
It's a very small fishery but very diverse. It's very important recreationally and very important to indigenous peoples from Labrador. In every province of Canada, there are indigenous communities that are very interested in Atlantic salmon.
Status, of course, is quite variable. In one of the slides here, you can see that the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, which is the committee responsible for evaluating the status of resources, has looked at Atlantic salmon and they have looked across about 16 regional groups, 16 populations. The most southern populations in the Bay of Fundy of New Brunswick, off Nova Scotia, on the south coast of Newfoundland and Anticosti Island in Quebec are really in a poor state. They are either endangered or threatened. That means they are at high risk of extinction. As you go further north, the status improves. As you go to Labrador and Newfoundland, for whatever reason — we can think of several hypotheses — they are doing much better. It's the southern stocks that are suffering the most.
I won't get into details. There are slides of the Maritime provinces. In the Maritime provinces currently, in 2015, there were no retention fisheries allowed. If you were a recreational angler, you could not fish a lot of the rivers or you had to practice catch-and-release. No retention was allowed. Retention was allowed in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Quebec. That's where stocks are doing better.
In Newfoundland and Labrador in particular, as Kevin alluded to, because of the more northern populations, they appear to be doing substantially better. They have declined as well. It's not to say there has not been a decline, but it has not been as severe.
For Quebec, the fishery there is quite diverse. The status is also a bit different. There used to be a lot of large salmon retention of recreational fish in the Gaspé region. A lot of those rivers are now closed to retention of large salmon. They can keep small salmon, the grilse, but a lot of large salmon are protected. They have to be released in the recreational fishery because most of those are females and they carry a lot of eggs. That's what the management is now. Of the 109 rivers in Quebec where historically you could keep large salmon, currently there are only 36 or 40 rivers where anglers can keep large salmon, and it's mostly the northern rivers again.
That, in essence, is the crux of the status, in a nutshell. If there is more detail that I could offer, I would be happy to add that, or if there are questions or you need more information. If we can provide the committee more information on the status, we would be happy to do that.
I think I'll stop here and see if there are any questions or further information.
Mr. Stringer: I was going to do the last two slides in the presentation on the ministerial advisory committee, because I think we were asked what our initial thoughts were and what has happened with the advisory committee's recommendations.
The advisory committee was established last year, around the new year, and it was a panel of people who are passionate about Atlantic salmon. They had a number of meetings. They had meetings in St. John's, Moncton, Halifax and Quebec City. They met with stakeholders. As I said, they had 78 stakeholders at those meetings. They had a number of round tables. They had a number of presentations. Gérald spend a day or a half day with them and Bhagwant going through detailed information, science, management, those types of things. They provided a report that had 61 recommendations in a number of areas.
As I said, they ended up not saying, "We believe this is the big issue that we need to deal with.'' They basically set a program of work. They talked about some of the work that we have been doing and encouraged us to do more, and they did so in these areas: habitat, enforcement, science research, Aboriginal fisheries, international fisheries in Greenland in particular, and aquaculture. They made a specific recommendation about reviewing our Wild Atlantic Salmon Conservation Policy, which was established a number of years ago and had not been reviewed.
Through this fall and into the winter, we had a group that Gérald and Bhagwant have been involved with. Experts in management and science and all the different fields went through and assessed what our views are with respect to them, what we are doing at this point and what we can do further. In the coming weeks, we'll be coming out with a response on that.
Basically, overall, the program at work that was outlined is analogous and consistent with the program of work that is being undertaken. No question, they want us to do more. No question as well, the new funds we received in the budget will make it possible to be able to do some of those things.
In particular, I will highlight a few of their recommendations that we have moved on. One is working with international fisheries. We had NASCO, which is the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization and which involves Canada and other countries that deal with salmon. A fair amount of pressure was put on Greenland, which re- established a factory fishery, as they call it, commercial fishery others call it. They actually ended up reducing their catch, and they have put in place some catch monitoring and management measures, which is going to be quite helpful. Some of that advice came from the committee.
The committee also made an interim recommendation on catch-and-release in the Gulf Region, saying that given the numbers we had seen in 2014, we really should go to catch-and-release only in the Gulf Region. In some areas, there was some retention that we had allowed. So we did that.
There are other elements. As I say, we'll be coming out in the coming weeks with a specific response to the overall recommendations of the committee, but the bottom line is it's a very useful report, a program of work that outlines the areas that I spoke to and something that we will see as guiding us in the future on Atlantic salmon.
We will now be happy to take any questions you might have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Stringer. We are starting to develop a list here for questions. As usual, we go first our deputy chair, Senator Hubley.
Senator Hubley: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Welcome to you. It seems to be an annual event that you come to update us. We certainly always appreciate that. It's always a learning experience.
The Minister's Advisory Committee on Atlantic Salmon made a couple of recommendations with regard to developing a grey seal harvest in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, as well as harvests in other areas where seals are targeting wild Atlantic salmon. The committee also recommended further research on the full impact of seals in Atlantic salmon stock.
As you know, in October of 2012, almost four years ago, this committee made a similar recommendation with regard to grey seals and the impact on groundfish. The committee recommended that DFO implement and manage a grey seal targeted removal program in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence starting with the 2013 season and going for a period of four years. The same recommendation included creating research protocols during the harvest to test the impact of predation on groundfish stocks. Minister Shea's reply in May of 2014 to our recommendation noted that the government agreed, but that it required a full and open partnership with all key stakeholders.
I would like to know where DFO is in regard to implementing those recommendations for the grey seal harvest in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Have you begun any consultations with the key stakeholders involved, including provinces and industry? What research has DFO completed over the past four years with regard to this grey seal diet?
Mr. Stringer: I'll start, but I'll ask my science colleague to speak to grey seal diet. I can say a few things.
This has been an ongoing issue. It is a challenging issue. I think the last formal grey seal assessment showed that there were 505,000 in that population. That was up from about 30,000 from many years ago, but a significant increase. There was some science advice that it was having an impact on the recovery of cod in the southern gulf. There has not been advice from science that it is having an impact on salmon.
There have been studies on stomach contents of grey seals — I'm going to ask my science colleagues to correct me if I'm wrong — that do not show that salmon are a particular favourite of grey seals, perhaps because there aren't that many of them. Before they answer that, I'll answer the rest of your question, which is around what else we have done.
We have talked to colleagues. We have talked to people in the fishing industry. We have talked to provinces. We have talked to the seal industry about potential management measures. I guess all I can say is it continues to be under consideration. It's something that we need to make sure we are engaging with the minister on. We do note it is a recommendation in here.
The recommendation really speaks to conducting stomach content analysis on seals, which we are doing. It speaks to allowing seal harvest culls in areas where they are clearly targeting wild salmon policy, and it speaks to developing a grey seal harvest in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I think what we can say on that one is we would love to have a grey seal harvest, and the challenge is the market. The question of the harvests or culls is a different challenge.
With respect to Atlantic salmon, I think there is a view that it may not be that significant a factor, but there are broader issues with grey seals in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. There's a lot of them and not as many fish.
Mr. Swerdfager: In terms of the grey seal work, as Kevin indicated, we have a range of research under way, including in terms of the stomach content analysis he refers to. We focused a little more of our energy on grey seal and cod interactions because some people have some interest in that too. Certainly there is a fair bit of work under way to understand seal population dynamics, not only on the basis of any particular species but with respect to their interaction on salmon, cod and other species. That work is well advanced and under way. We expect it will increase a little bit over the next little while as well.
Senator Hubley: To date, to your knowledge, there has not been a cull per se?
Mr. Stringer: No, there has not been a cull.
Senator Hubley: There has not been a cull. I just wanted to add one comment on that. During the study that we did on the grey seal, the evidence that the fishermen provided to us was overwhelming. It was cod; it was salmon; it was lobster. They were eating just about everything that was in the ocean at that time. We made a fairly strong recommendation at that time. Certainly, noting the sensitivity of such an event, we felt it was still a very important thing that we consider seriously. That would be my comment on it. I'll just leave that with you.
Mr. Stringer: I appreciate that. What we can say is we do watch, as my colleague has said, very carefully, regardless of whatever they are eating. We do have formal science advice. It is having an impact on the recovery of cod. We don't have formal science advice in other areas. We know that they are eating something, and they are eating fish. We see the numbers and have those concerns about the numbers, so we do take the point.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Hubley. A 700-pound grey seal ain't eating carrots.
Senator Eaton: In 2013, you were talking about your work with NASCO. I don't have to tell you that in 2013 Greenland harvested 47 tonnes of salmon, 82 per cent of which were felt to be of Canadian origin. Then there is St. Pierre and Miquelon, which harvested 5.3 tons, all Canadian salmon.
When we talk about the salmon seeming to get in trouble going to sea, do we have goals to take Greenland from 47 tonnes back down 5 or 10 tonnes? Have we set goals? How about St. Pierre and Miquelon? Why shouldn't Atlantic salmon just be reserved for sport fishing? Why should it even be sort of a fishery? Is that a reasonable question?
Mr. Stringer: It's a great question, one that we take very seriously. NASCO is a really useful organization to be able to raise these issues. We do think we had some success last year, although not as much success as we would like.
Greenland had set a higher number. I can't remember exactly what the number was. They took 47, but they set a number of 55 or something like that. They brought their number down substantially last year.
Senator Eaton: Did they tell you what it was?
Mr. Stringer: Yes, 45 is their objective. I don't know if they caught 45, but they set that as their objective, which was significantly down from their objective before, but not too far off what they actually caught.
Our main objective in the short term is to get a management regime in place so we know what they are actually catching, because we're not absolutely certain about that 47 that was reported. It's to have catch reporting and to have management regimes in place so they can actually ensure it's an effectively managed fishery.
In terms of the numbers that you spoke about, the percentage from Canadian waters, we believe that that number is accurate, and maybe higher. There are some fish that start off and end in Greenland, but very few. It is mostly a Canadian fishery. There may be Americans, but there is not much. It is a challenge, and we'll continue to push it.
On St. Pierre and Miquelon, they are not actually members of NASCO. The previous minister had actually written to St. Pierre and Miquelon asking them to join NASCO and speaking to the need to ensure that we get a management regime for salmon as well.
Senator Eaton: If our trade deal with Europe is finalized, will this have any effect on our ability through the EU to pressure countries like Denmark and France? Forget St. Pierre and Miquelon; it's really Paris, I'm sure.
Mr. Stringer: We actually have an important relationship with St. Pierre and Miquelon through Paris on a number of species. We have an arrangement that works on cod, Greenland halibut and other species. The challenge has been salmon. The number has been low in terms of what they take, but we are seeking to have them join the international community, which actually is looking after and setting the objective of conservation of salmon going forward.
Senator Eaton: Are salmon in Scotland and Iceland feeling the same pressure as they are over here?
Mr. Stringer: They are. We're seeing reductions across the globe. I don't know if Mr. Chaput has specific details on that in terms of what the order-of-magnitude comparison is.
Mr. Chaput: Certainly the stocks in Scotland and all European stocks have shown a similar decline to what we see in North American stocks.
Senator Eaton: Are they catch and release still?
Mr. Chaput: In Europe, there're all kinds of fisheries taking place. Scotland has retention fisheries and still has some commercial fisheries. Most of the countries I can think of — France, Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales, Finland, Norway and Iceland — still have retention fisheries. Some have small commercial fisheries. Norway has larger ones.
To answer your question, yes, they have shown a similar decline. Much like we see in Canada, in the southern countries, the decline has been more important. For example, in France, Ireland, and even in Wales, the declines have been quite severe. As you go towards Norway and Finland, and some go all the way to Russia, the declines are less severe. The stocks are doing better. Again, on the south to north line, they seem to be doing that.
Senator Eaton: It could be water temperature.
Mr. Chaput: Greenland fishes Atlantic salmon when salmon go to feed in Greenland. They're feeding in their second winter at sea because there's lots of food resources. European salmon go there as well. About 82 per cent North American-origin was estimated in 2014. The other part of that was European-origin salmon, mostly from southern stock, Scotland, Ireland, France and so on. The stocks mix there on the feeding grounds, and Greenland has access to them.
Greenlanders are Northern peoples. They live mostly on the food that is available to them. We can sort of think about maybe their justification for their fishery but, at the same time, it has to be managed properly. Canada is putting pressure to make the fishery there one that we would consider to be for food and not a commercial fishery. As Kevin said, they now have sales to fish plants that are allowed. People could sell fish in Greenland anyway in the open markets. That was allowed if you were a licensed fisherman.
I wish I could speak more optimistically, but last year's catch was actually much higher than 45 tonnes. They reported 57 tonnes. Despite their best efforts to maintain a total capture of 45 tonnes, they made improvements on reporting and on people declaring their catches and trying to control. But last year, they have since reported 57 tonnes, although they tried to keep it at 45 tonnes.
People come to NASCO,like managers, and go back to their home country and have to negotiate with the people there. Sometimes things go well and sometimes things don't go as well.
NASCO is the forum where we discuss and negotiate. Canada's position has always been to be proactive and negotiate with Greenland and not to impose things to make them improve their fishery. There were multiple meetings last year between Canada and Greenland to go through how we manage our fisheries, how stocks and landings are reported, and how best to approach these kind of small artisanal fisheries. We're working with Greenland as a partner rather than trying to be a policeman to try to make them come to terms with the fishery.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Just following up more on the marine mortality, you are not saying it but you are kind of going the way of the warming waters when you mentioned that in the north it is not as bad as it is in the south. We talked about the seals. Is there anything else that you are looking at? Have studies found anything or have your observations found a cause?
Mr. Chaput: No, I'm sorry, Senator Stewart Olsen. It is a question that everyone asks us all the time. They're frustrated because we don't have the answer to say what is killing the salmon. Your point on warming ocean water is certainly a factor; and predators have certainly changed, and we talked about seals. Also, their food base has changed.
Look at capelin. Some recent publications and literature have tried to look at some correlations between capelin abundance and even capelin quality off Greenland and Newfoundland to see if that's changed. There are indications about things like a capelin, which is a small fish that salmon might eat. If you look at it across time, you find that a capelin is not a capelin. Some are much fatter and richer. Our time series shows that in the 1970s and 1980s, the capelin sampled were quite rich. Now a capelin doesn't have the same number of calories as they seemed to have 25 to 30 years ago.
Their prey basis has changed. While they might still be eating capelin or other prey, the quality of the food is different now. What is causing that? Is the plankton source different for the capelin than translates to other fish? The warmer temperatures might affect capelin. A lot of factors interact. There's not a direct line from warm water to salmon. There're all kinds of intervening points, probably through the food base, currents and changes in ice distribution. Unfortunately, we don't have a single answer. The ecosystem is quite complex. We think all those things are playing out.
It is difficult to say whether culling seals would solve the salmon problem. Potentially it might not hurt the salmon problem; but will it correct the problem? It's hard to say. A lot of these factors interact.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Have you had any suspicion over the years — and I know recordkeeping hasn't been as good — that it may very well be a cyclical thing? Some fishermen believe that with cod it is just cyclical and we'll get past it. I'm just wondering if there are any studies from further back that showed kind of the same thing.
Mr. Chaput: Our records are not that far back. The records we have to look at are the landing and fisheries catches, which begin in about the late 1800s. You question the completeness of those records, but they're there; and you can see highs and lows.
Some scientists that came before us looked at the highs and lows and said you can probably explain a drop in abundance because you overfished the previous generation. We have to keep in mind that sometimes a high catch can translate to low catch a generation or two later. We do see periods of ups and downs.
For the most recent period from the 1970s, where we have perhaps better records, you almost get a sense there was a bit of a movement, but in the mid-1980s, it just went down and never stopped, for whatever reason. If there was a cycle, that cycle didn't continue, and now we're in a continuous period of low abundance. There are no more cycles. It's been basically very low and has sustained there since about the early 1990s.
Senator Stewart Olsen: On the sport fishery in New Brunswick in particular, there have been rumours, and I'm not asking you to tell me any government secrets or anything, that they may stop the catch and release and that the sports fishery may come back. I know there's a huge lobby for that. I am concerned about that because I think we should give it a little bit more time. What do you think?
Mr. Stringer: That one decision is imminent and one that the minister will make in the very near future. We're aware of the views of the stakeholders. We've done a lot of consultations and we know there are strongly held views. We can say we are serious about conservation and the decision will be made in the very near future.
Senator Baker: It seems that somebody listening to us here today would say, well, here we are in Canada and we have no commercial salmon fishery at all on the East Coast. We're talking about the East Coast, right? We're not talking here about the West Coast. Here on the East Coast, there's no commercial fishery. If somebody goes out with a net and floats a herring net and catches a salmon, they go to jail. Canadians are put in jail if they catch salmon.
We are producing, according to you, 80 per cent of the catch that they get in Greenland and another high percentage of what they take in some other parts of the world. A logical, rational person would say: Well, if you have this huge commercial fishery in Greenland — and it is huge — why shouldn't we as well have a commercial fishery in Canada to catch our own fish so that they won't be catching our fish? That's my first question.
The second question is this: What makes the food off the Greenland coast more attractive than the food off the Labrador coast or the Newfoundland coast? Surely, Mr. Chaput, you know the answer to that question. I mean, you live this and you sleep this — salmon is what you think about. What is different between a capelin in Greenland and a capelin off the Newfoundland and Labrador coast?
My third question, I have forgotten.
The Chair: Good. Let's deal with it.
Senator Baker: The chairman says "good.''
The Chair: Let's deal with the first two first. You may still think of the third one, Senator Baker.
Mr. Chaput: To answer your second question, I like exotic food myself. Maybe that's why they go there; I don't know. I guess it's probably because temperature conditions are correct for them. The currents are right. The food is readily available for them.
Senator Baker: What do you mean by that?
Mr. Chaput: I guess because they have lots of capelin, shrimp and squid. Salmon are diverse. They don't just eat capelin. If it's in front of their mouth, they will eat it. They have always gone there, for some reason. They're also in the Labrador Sea, but there's a lot concentrated in Greenland. Maybe it is because the ice forms too early in the late fall off Labrador. The current in Labrador is very cold.
Senator Baker: Mr. Chaput, look at the cycle of squid that you mention. They're born in Florida. They go up to Newfoundland, and they go back down to Florida and die. We have lots of squid. They wouldn't go to Greenland for squid. There must be some other reason why Canadian salmon like going to Greenland and giving them 80 per cent of their total commercial catch.
Mr. Chaput: They seem to like to go to Greenland in their second summer. That's where they're found. That's where they're fished. I don't know why it's so attractive, but they have been doing that since after the ice age, right?
Senator Baker: That's it. Getting back to my question, a logical question, a rational Canadian would say — especially a fisherman — how come we're producing the salmon and we're not allowed to put out a net? We go to jail. But the salmon can go to Greenland where they have this big commercial fishery. What is the logic in not having a commercial fishery in Canada if we don't strenuously object to the commercial fishery in other nations where they're taking our fish? Or can we say that it is our fish?
Mr. Chaput: Off Greenland we can, because we do DNA analysis. We take tissues, and they can identify Canadian salmon from European salmon. They're actually quite different genetically. There's no problem identifying them. That's why we know 82 per cent or some years higher are Canadian-origin salmon.
Regarding the large commercial fishery in Greenland, I want to set the record straight that it's not a large commercial fishery. That 57 tonnes represents about 12,000 Canadian salmon. In North America, of the fish they catch in Greenland, we get about 160,000 coming back to our rivers. Now, 57 tonnes sounds like a lot of fish, but in the late 1960s, early 1970s, Greenland was catching 2,500 tonnes of salmon.
Senator Baker: There are no rivers in St. Pierre and Miquelon, are there?
Mr. Chaput: No.
Senator Baker: There are no rivers, so they don't produce salmon, but they're allowed to catch it.
Mr. Chaput: They catch about three tonnes. It is a sensitive issue for Canadians, especially people in Newfoundland. We're across the water from them. I can see your point. I know where you are going.
Senator Eaton: We fish and release, and they catch —
Mr. Chaput: They're an island community that lives off the ocean. You understand that yourself.
Senator Baker: Yes.
Mr. Chaput: They fish salmon because they're nearby. Again, as Kevin said, it is something that Canada is working very hard to work with France on behalf of St. Pierre.
Mr. Stringer: We have seen reductions. You made the point, Gérald, that we saw an actual increase in the reported amount from the 47 a couple years ago to 57 now. I think that's partly about the objective stuff of not just Canada but other countries that are impacted by this. I have got Greenland to support a management regime where there actually is reporting, so we're a lot more confident of the numbers we are seeing there. I think we are seeing an overall reduction.
We should point out that Canada retains fish as well. I should have it with me. I know the number. I can't remember exactly what it is, but I'm sure Gérald knows it. The amount of fish —
Senator Baker: It is 1 per cent bycatch.
Mr. Stringer: — in Canada that gets through the recreational fishery, and food, social and ceremonial fisheries, through the residence fishery in Labrador, is more significant than what is caught in Greenland. That's pointed out to us as well. It is a significant number. It is a number that we're managing. It's a number that we're managing in particular in areas where we have got significant concerns. There are other areas we don't have such concerns.
We do take the point. The international issue is a significant one. It is something that we raised. The minister raises it; we raise it. We only have so many tools, but we're not alone. As Gérald has said, there are the Europeans and others. Indeed, the Greenlanders have worked with us in particular in the last couple of years. We would like to see St. Pierre and Miquelon, i.e. France, at NASCO to participate as well.
The Chair: I hate to stifle this wonderful discussion, but we have four senators left to question our guests, and Minister Tootoo arrives in about 15 minutes. I ask that we keep our questions and answers to the point as best as possible.
Senator Raine: A couple of my questions have already been asked. We have notes on the small mouth bass in Miramichi Lake. I wouldn't mind an update on that program.
Mr. Stringer: On small mouth bass, there was a three-year initiative to try to eradicate small bass at the top of the Miramichi, and there was concern about the impact on salmon. We actually got a recommendation. There was a chemical eradication process over three years. It came to an end recently, and the assessment process is underway. I'm not sure if we have done a formal science assessment around it to see how it went and to declare whether it was successful or not. I'm not sure anybody would think that you can fully eradicate, but to contain it to see how well it is contained.
Mr. Chaput: We have actually done some reviews on it. We did not use chemicals, Kevin. We tried to control them by mechanical means, by fishing them out. It is a non-native species in Miramichi. People were concerned about this fish being introduced by people in this lake because they thought it would be a nice sport fish to have and, of course, it is an Atlantic salmon river. We have tried to contain them by keeping the fish in the system. We tried to fish them out. It has been very difficult to fish the last fish out. People talk about overfishing, but you can't overfish small mouth bass. You try but you can't get rid of them.
The efforts are continuing to keep the population under check, to understand it better and, eventually, hopefully remove it from the lake. We're looking at options the next couple of years, but the work is ongoing.
Senator Raine: Are there any hatcheries or is there any salmon hatchery-type program on the East Coast as there is on the West Coast?
Mr. Chaput: There are some hatchery programs on the East Coast. The department itself operates two hatcheries, two fish culturing facilities, but we use them for recovery of endangered populations in the Bay of Fundy and inner Bay of Fundy. The hatchery department operates two conservation centres. We have very directed programs to try to introduce salmon back to the system to keep them alive and keep their genetic diversity alive. They're very focused programs. They're not for supporting fisheries and augmenting access to resources. They're strictly for maintaining populations. However, there are some non-government hatcheries operating in the region that do some stocking, and these are hatcheries which we divested about 20 years ago from the department.
Senator Raine: The fish from those hatcheries are fin clipped or identifiable?
Mr. Chaput: Some are fin clipped; many are not because they are small in size. They're too small to mark. They're modest programs, but they're continuing in several rivers in the Gulf Region, in particular.
Senator Enverga: Thank you for the presentation. I learned a lot about Atlantic salmon today. My question is about the landlocked salmon. They complete their entire life cycle in fresh water, and Canada is home to these salmon populations particularly in northern Quebec. Is this part of your study? What's the health of this particular population?
Mr. Chaput: There are many, many landlocked populations throughout Eastern Canada. Newfoundland has lots of them. In all the little ponds and lakes, there is land-locked salmon. There's some in Quebec. There's a landlocked population in New Brunswick in the Grand Lake and St. John River system. Again, they're Atlantic salmon and, as I mentioned it's a fresh water fish. It doesn't have to go to sea to complete its life cycle.
In Lake Ontario, we're not sure. The Atlantic salmon in Lake Ontario are now extirpated. They're gone. We're not sure if they were completely landlocked and spent their entire lifecycle going into Lake Ontario and back into the rivers. We don't study the landlocked populations per se because we focus on the anadromous ones because that's where the major fishery is concentrated. Very few people fish landlocked salmon. People accidentally catch them sometimes fishing for trout in Newfoundland and places like that, but the focus really is the anadromous population.
Senator Enverga: Have you tried to study the landlocked salmon? Maybe it is good for commercial fisheries. It is more like land-based aquaculture.
Mr. Chaput: They don't grow very large. If they are landlocked, they tend to be fairly small. They complete their lifecycle and remain very small. They might be six, eight or ten inches; some might be larger. In Labrador, in fact, the Churchill River had one of the largest landlocked populations of salmon, and I think that river holds the world record for landlocked salmon. But generally they're smaller and they're not really commercially exploitable.
Senator McInnis: To what extent does acid rain prey on the Atlantic salmon? Have you been in touch with the Atlantic Salmon Association with respect to the installation of the douser that was put on the west river in Nova Scotia, on the eastern shore? The water was like acid. The pH is now apparently 5.2 where it shoots the lime out; something like that.
Over the weekend I was reading my Atlantic Salmon Federation magazine. The private sector pulp and paper companies get punished a lot, but John Dillon, the president of one of the major pulp and paper companies, purchased and installed a sonic tracking system — you will be aware of this, I'm sure — and they put it on at the confluence of the Miramichi and I forget what other river. That machine is able to capture smolts without injuring them, and they implant so they can follow them.
Are you aware of this, and are these contraptions worthy? For example. the douser, which was put there by the Atlantic Salmon Association in Nova Scotia on the eastern shore, cost by now, with operation and everything, about $1 million. I don't know about this. This is a western contraption, apparently. Do you look at those things as to how we might be able to monitor where it's going and how severe acid rain really is?
Mr. Chaput: Thank you, senator, for the question. On the question of acid rain, the concerns about acid rain came up in the 1980s in Canada because it affected many parts of the country, from Ontario all the way east. Acid rain is probably one of the larger reasons why the Atlantic salmon on the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia — we call it the Southern Uplands — has actually declined and disappeared in many rivers. The geology there is unable to buffer the acid. It is hard rock. They call it granite. When the acid precipitation came down, it was so acidic it took all the buffering capacity out. Since the early 1980s, the government has been doing studies on that with Environment Canada, looking at acid rain. It was one of the major threats identified for that section of Nova Scotia. Many populations have disappeared now because salmon can return but the eggs can't survive. The juveniles can't survive the acid precipitation.
In the western Sheet Harbour, the Nova Scotia Salmon Association has this project to try and mitigate acid rain with this lime douser, but I think there are about 47 rivers on the south coast of Nova Scotia that are impacted by acid rain. It is a very expensive method of correcting a problem, but I understand that program is producing very interesting results in terms of increasing the pH and improving salmon returns. It is a labour- and cost-intensive effort for all the rivers we have, but it is one solution for a specific problem.
On your other question about the counting and tracking of smolts, we collaborate with the Atlantic Salmon Federation on some of these projects where they capture smolts going to sea. They put acoustic tags on them, and you can follow those animals through the estuary and so on. We're well aware of those studies. They actually began in 2003 in Miramichi. It has been ongoing every year. It is also in the Restigouche and in two rivers in Quebec, including the Cascapedia and the Kedgwick. We are aware of those programs. It is one way of understanding marine mortality as we follow these animals through to see where they die, which ones survive and how quickly they migrate.
Senator Poirier: My question is on the catch-and-release program. I'm aware that there is a catch-and release- program up in our end of the country, and I know there's a possibility of some changes to that coming up. I assume this is not the first time you have done a catch-and-release program. I'm assuming that you have done it in past years. I'm curious to know in the past years when you did it, how many years did you do it? What was the impact of the results of doing the catch-and-release compared to just doing it for a one season? I think it has just been done the one season right now, right? If it is reversed this year, it would have just been put in place for one season. I know there's a lot of pressure on the tourism-specific areas, especially along the Miramichi River, to measure the impact of the catch- and-release, but I just want to compare the length of time and what makes the difference in the end.
Mr. Chaput: Catch-and-release in angling fisheries began in 1984. In 1984, in the Maritime provinces and in Newfoundland, you had to release all large salmon. Any fish that was longer than 63 centimetres — or 23 and 3/4 inches, whatever it is — had to be returned to the water. That's been in place in the Maritimes since 1984.
Senator Poirier: And it still exists today?
Mr. Chaput: Absolutely. What was new in 2015 was that you had to also release the small salmon, the grilse. That was a measure that was put in place to protect the small numbers of returns of all salmon size groups that occurred in the Miramichi. We wanted to keep every salmon that was possibly returning and give it the best chance of surviving. Catch-and-release has been in in effect since 1984 and has contributed to increased egg depositions and, we think, better production for salmon rivers. Around this new measure to protect small salmon, the debate is whether small salmon do any good. They say all of them are males anyways. I think males are important in life. They sort of have a role, but do you need all the males you have in the river? Maybe not. I think they have a role to play. The debate is whether it is effective in terms of improving stock status.
We have catch-and-release, it has been here a long time and we know it works fairly well. We know the mortality rate from release is quite low because we did studies on it. If it's practiced properly, and if people handle fish properly, survival rates can be very good. It is a measure that people have used to keep people interested in the fishery while protecting and improving stock status.
Senator Poirier: When we do the catch and release specifically — and it is a recreational sport — does that also come into effect for the First Nations people, or do they have treaty rights where they're still allowed to fish? If they do, what quantity of fish are they allowed, and is that having an impact on it?
Mr. Chaput: I will pass that off to the manager.
Mr. Stringer: Just to add to what Gérald was saying to the previous question, we have had catch and release, or non-retention, in place for some time, and for years in some other areas, right? In P.E.I. we had that, and it's been years and years and years.
With respect to First Nations and Aboriginal groups, there are different arrangements with different groups. There are actually some very useful recommendations when there was First Nation participation in the committee last year, because there is retention. It is part of the food, social and ceremonial fisheries that they have. Some of the recommendations speak to moving toward trap fisheries and using less gillnet fisheries and other more selective-type harvesting methods, and in some cases, moving towards catch-and-release for First Nations as well.
Those are subject to ongoing negotiations. We have actually had First Nations step up and say, "We're going to change how we do this in some cases,'' but there is some retention in First Nations fisheries across the Atlantic.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses and senators for your cooperation. We came in right under the hour, and Mr. Tootoo is waiting with his officials.
Welcome, minister and officials. We certainly thank the minister and his officials for taking the time to join us here this evening. I would ask that maybe you do a slight introduction of your officials with you so that all senators will be aware of who is who. Then we are going to have some opening remarks from the minister, I understand, and an opportunity to ask some questions. So introduce yourselves first, please.
Hon. Hunter Tootoo, P.C., M.P., Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard: I'm Hunter Tootoo, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and we'll start over here with Kevin.
Mr. Stringer: Kevin Stringer, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management.
Leslie MacLean, Associate Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: I'm Leslie MacLean, the Associate Deputy Minister and the Acting Deputy Minister.
Jody Thomas, Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: I'm Jody Thomas, Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard.
Mario Pelletier, Deputy Commissioner, Operations, Canadian Coast Guard, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Mario Pelletier, Deputy Commissioner, Operations, for the Coast Guard.
Mr. Swerdfager: I'm still Trevor Swerdfager, ADM Science.
The Chair: You haven't changed in the last five minutes.
Senator Baker: You didn't say anything in the last meeting.
The Chair: Minister Tootoo, the floor is yours.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, senators, for inviting me to be here at my first Senate committee meeting and, in all likelihood, not my last, so I look forward to coming.
Before I start, I just want to also acknowledge my Parliamentary Secretary, Serge Cormier, sitting up in the audience. He is going to be critiquing me later on.
As you know, I'm here with members of DFO's senior management team. Although you have met, I'm sure, many times before, I would like to again acknowledge Leslie MacLean, who is here in her new role as Acting Deputy Minister since Matthew King just retired as Deputy Minister after many years of service not only to DFO but other departments as well. He was supposed to leave last June, and they talked him into sticking around until December, and then I talked him into sticking around until after the budget cycle. I was very happy andapleased that he agreed to stick around and help us through the budget cycle, which I believe is a monumental budget for the department. I was very happy for him to have been at the helm when this went through.
As you know, in early February, I had the pleasure of being the first cabinet minister invited to Question Period in the Red Chamber. It was a moment of great personal pride for me, because it meant that, as I said then, I've had an opportunity to respond to questions int municipal, territorial and federal chambers, as well as the upper chamber. That's a claim to fame that not too many Canadians have, so that could be a trivia question in a future Trivial Pursuit game — maybe in 50 years or something like that.
During that session, I was able to talk about my mandate and some of the priorities that Prime Minister Trudeau asked me to focus on. I'll quickly recap. I was asked to increase Canada's marine protected areas to 10 per cent by 2020 and 5 per cent by 2017; restore funding for ocean science and monitoring programs so we can better understand fish stocks; monitor pollution in the oceans, and support responsible and sustainable aquaculture; use scientific evidence and consider climate change when making decisions affecting fish stocks and ecosystems management; to work with cabinet colleagues to review changes made to the fisheries and Navigable Waters Protections Act; to review Canada's environmental assessment process; and to enhance protection of Canada's species at risk through sound science.
I will also work hard to meet the commitments under the national shipbuilding strategy; to improve marine safety and examine the impact climate change is having on our arctic marine ecosystems.
I think this is a tall order, and Canadians want a voice in each of these matters. I know that because, early on in my mandate, I travelled across the country, coast to coast to coast, to listen to what people had to say. My message to them at the time, stakeholders, whether fisheries, environmental groups, First Nations groups, the oil and gas industry, everybody, was that I'm here to listen and I'm here to learn. I felt it was important for me to hear firsthand the issues and concerns that they had, along with some of the successes and challenges, to able to help me better understand those files so that when I'm at a point where I have to make a decision affecting any of those, I'll have a better understanding, having heard those issues firsthand from those individuals.
I met with provincial counterparts, indigenous leaders — like I said, all kinds of groups — aquaculture, energy, and quite a number of environmental and conservation groups.
When I was in British Columbia, I took the time to meet with Justice Cohen to talk. We had scheduled about half an hour. I think we chatted for about an hour and a half one evening. We talked about his recommendations to restore wild Pacific salmon stocks in that region.
I also had an opportunity to tour an aquaculture farm, and it was the first time I had ever been to an aquaculture farm. I used to live and work on a chicken farm and a wheat farm in Saskatchewan, so that was my first time at a fish farm. I learned quite a bit about the growing industry of aquaculture.
Everywhere I went, I heard one common theme: Canadians want strong federal leadership when it comes to sustainable fisheries, aquaculture, and the health of our oceans and waterways.
As minister, I will be a strong advocate for environmentally sustainable fisheries, as well as for a responsible and sustainable aquaculture industry. I'll also keep a close eye on what I can do to support habitat and conservation efforts.
As you know, the federal budget was recently tabled, and I was very pleased that it contained a number of investments that will help me carry out and fulfill my mandate. For example, over $197 million was set aside for ocean and freshwater science, monitoring and research activities. I think this represents Canada's largest investment in aquatic sciences in over a generation. This money will be used to hire new research scientists, biologists and technicians, and it will be the largest single science recruitment that DFO has had in recent history. I can tell you from the people that I have talked to prior and since then that there are a lot of very happy scientists out there.
In addition, this funding will allow us to invest in new technologies and, more importantly, to build important partnerships.
Let me talk about one way that this will impact Canadians. With more scientists, DFO will be able to do more stock assessments on commercial species and species at risk, including marine mammals. Stock assessments help us understand the effects of fishing and aquaculture. They provide sound data about the size of various stocks, and they help us predict how species will respond to certain management measures or adapt to climate change. This is important because fish and seafood, as I'm sure you all know, is Canada's third-largest food export. Many in the industries, especially the aquaculture industry, are really looking to boost their export opportunities as we move forward.
In meeting with my provincial and territorial counterparts, many of them stress the economic importance of the aquaculture sector to regional economies across the country, specifically on the East Coast and in some areas on the West Coast. Our government is committed to a robust regime that enables an aquaculture sector to develop in an environmentally friendly and responsible way. We will continue to work with the provinces, territories, indigenous peoples, industry and other stakeholders to develop plans that will enable the industry to grow sustainably. My department will also ensure the protection of the aquatic ecosystem.
I know that members of this committee have done excellent work in the area of aquaculture. I understand that you have decided to continue with this work and table a revised report next year. I would like to thank you for your contribution, and I look forward to your final report and recommendations.
The budget also outlined a number of investments that will help build the economy while at the same time protect the environment and address climate change. DFO, along with Natural Resources Canada, will receive over $81 million for important marine conservation activities, including designating new marine protected areas under the Oceans Act.
Our MPA targets that I mentioned earlier are very ambitious, as I said right from day one. We all know that the process of designation of them is very complex. We have to factor a number of things into this work, including the effects of climate change and the effect climate change will have on marine ecosystems. As promised, we will consult fully with provinces, territories, industry and Canadians, including First Nations, on this work. That's one commitment that I've made over and over again — meeting with every stakeholder. The one thing I was really pleased about — and it doesn't matter what area these groups I met with were from — they all supported us with these targets. They all want to help work with us to achieve them. That's very important.
The budget also sets aside funding to maintain and upgrade federal infrastructure properties, such as the Canadian Coast Guard bases. Also, an additional $149 million will help improve infrastructure at federally owned small craft harbours.
In addition, DFO is one of seven departments and agencies that will share over $129 million to help our infrastructure adapt to a changing climate and to help communities become more resilient to the impacts of climate change.
As the first Inuk to hold this office, I'm proud of our government's commitment to indigenous peoples. In terms of fisheries, DFO will receive over $33 million to extend the Atlantic and Pacific Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiative. This program will help First Nations access commercial fisheries and build sustainable commercial fishing enterprises.
Northerners, including Inuit, will also receive $40 million in federal funding to help build strong, diversified and sustainable economies across the three territories. One area that will benefit from this investment is the fisheries sector.
I would like to take a moment to talk about Canada's seal harvest, which we all know has struggled with controversies and market blockages.
Since becoming minister, I don't know if you noticed, but just about every day I plan my whole tenure sitting in the House of Commons to wearing a seal skin tie every day so I've got quite the collection of them now.
Senator Baker: Hear, hear.
Mr. Tootoo: Other members are asking for them too, which is great. On our recent trip to Washington, I actually left a seal skin tie for President Obama that I wore when I first met him on the south lawn that morning.
The agreement I signed is an important one. It's a new one that supports Canada's indigenous seal industry. This agreement falls under the federal Certification and Market Access Program for Seals, or CMAPS.
I'm learning all these acronyms. Some of them are getting more and more familiar as time goes on in the department. First I was overloaded with all kinds of acronyms and I didn't have a clue what they meant.
It's the first of its kind. CMAPS will fund the development of certification and tracking systems so seal products harvested by indigenous communities can be certified for sale in the European Union. This agreement is further evidence of our government's commitment to strengthen relations with indigenous communities and support northern economic development.
As minister, I can't come before this committee without talking about the significant investments our government is making in the Canadian Coast Guard. Reopening the Kitsilano Coast Guard facility in Vancouver is a top priority for our government, and the people of British Columbia, and the mayor and the premier too. Over $23 million was set aside in the budget to reopen Kitsilano, and not only reopen it but expand its search and rescue services to include marine emergency response. This site will also provide emergency response training for our partners and serve as a regional incident command post in the event of a significant marine incident.
I think we all remember what happened in English Bay last summer, so some of the work and the discussions that have gone on between the Coast Guard, the department and the other stakeholders in the area are to find a way to better address that type of situation. This is going a long way to show we have listened to them. We totally understand where they're coming from and what their concerns are.
The coast guard will also receive $6 million from the federal budget to carry out technical assessment on the Manolis L shipwreck off Newfoundland. In 2013 the hull of this vessel allowed some fuel to reach the surface. Since then, an oil containment system was installed, but that's only a temporary solution, and funding for this assessment will enable us to get a full assessment done so we can come up with a final solution to resolve the issue once and for all.
The budget also identified the Canadian Coast Guard as one of several departments needing additional funding to deliver mission-critical services to Canadians. I think the Treasury Board will manage a $500-million fund that will help the government to better respond to program and operational risks, such as asset rust-out and program price inflation. Funding for the Coast Guard is yet to be determined, but as soon as decisions are made the amounts will be submitted for parliamentary approval through the estimates process.
As I mentioned at the outset, Canadians want a voice on the issues that matter to them most, whether it's setting quotas, developing new policies, adopting stronger regulations or a host of other topics. They want their government to be their partner and not their keeper. They want strong leadership and clear, practical advice. They want sound policy decisions that are based on science instead of politics, and they want us to make smart financial investments that will help secure the future of this industry. I'm confident that our government is the right partner for Canadians.
I'm also confident that the funding that was allocated to DFO and the Coast Guard will put our fisheries and aquaculture operations on a sustainable path to prosperity to help protect mariners and further safeguard our waters and our environment.
I also trust that members this committee and all Canadians will hold me to account with respect to achieving results with the investments that we are making. I also expect you to hold me to account when it comes to achieving my mandate, along with my colleagues in the House of Commons and Canadians. That's how it should be. I look forward to providing you with regular progress updates in the months and years ahead.
I'm sure you may have a question or two, and I'll be pleased to do my best to answer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister Tootoo.
Colleagues, time is of the essence, so I'm going to permit a question and a short — I stress the word "short'' — supplementary. If we get an opportunity to do a further round, we will do that, but I want to keep it as tight as I can.
As usual, we will begin our questions with our deputy chair, Senator Hubley.
Senator Hubley: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll do it quickly. Welcome to all of you. It's a pleasure to have you. Thank you for that really extensive overview. You are going to be a busy minister for sure.
I want to ask you about the 2012 changes to the Fisheries Act, specifically the section that dealt with the harmful alteration, disruption and destruction of habitat. Originally the law protected all bodies of water with fish in them, regardless of size or whether they were natural or man-made. The former government brought in legislation to change that. At the time, I certainly received correspondence about it and other fishery-related changes that were concerns to Islanders.
The Atlantic Salmon Federation had concerns and testified to that effect at the house Fisheries Committee. In March, you received a letter signed by a large variety of organizations, including the Atlantic Salmon Federation, and dozens of other environmental law groups, scholars, fishing, wildlife and watershed groups. They are asking you to repeal the 2012 habitat changes. They would like to see a review of the Fisheries Act.
I know that your mandate letter asked you to work with the Minister of Transport to review the previous government's changes and restore lost protections, so my question is this: Do you have a timeline in place? Have you or your officials begun this review?
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you senator. That's a very important issue and one that I heard in my travels from coast to coast to coast.
One of the things that everyone mentioned to me is that they wanted to see those lost protections restored. We're happy to hear that we have been mandated to review the Fisheries Act and restore those lost protections, pretty much to the T. I said we're going to do it in an open and transparent and consultative process to allow everyone and anyone, and all the stakeholders, if they wanted to have input into what those changes should be, the opportunity to be able to do that. When those changes were made, they were embedded in an omnibus bill, and there was no consultation. I think one thing that the Prime Minister has made very clear is that we're going to do things in an open, transparent and consultative manner so that anyone who has issues or concerns would have an opportunity to have their say in what those should be.
I am working with my colleagues, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and the Minister of Transport, on bringing forward a plan to be able to move forward on doing that. We hope to bring something to cabinet within the next month or two to be able to look at it and outline a way forward on that process.
Senator Poirier: Thank you, Minister, for being here and for a very informative presentation.
In the news recently, the Swedish government is moving forward to ban all American lobster imports into the European Union, citing that the American lobster is an invasive species, all because they found a handful of lobster in their water. Clearly the economic consequence for the lobster harvesters in Eastern Canada would be enormous. According to the Lobster Council of Canada, last year alone, exports to European markets were about $75 million, which accounts for about 10 per cent of the live export.
What is your government doing to try to protect our lobster fishermen from the possible impact that this could have on our coastal communities? Have you met with the Lobster Council of Canada to discuss this issue? Have you also talked to maybe our United States counterparts, Minister Freeland or representatives in the Swedish government on this issue? It could have serious impacts.
Mr. Tootoo: I noted with a lot of interest when that story came out. Sweden's efforts to have lobster from North America listed as an alien invasive species is a big concern to me, considering the impact it could have on the industry over here. We are addressing the issue from many different angles. Canada's ambassador to the EU has conveyed letters to Norway — they just passed a ban there as well — and to European Commission trade and environment officials noting our concerns.
Canada's trade commissioners in the EU member states are engaging with their EU counterparts to try and generate as much support from member states to oppose the Swedish proposal, and DFO science officials are reviewing Sweden's risk assessment, which we understand would form the basis of any EU decision on this matter. I plan to personally raise these concerns with my EU counterparts later this month in Brussels.
The Canadian government and industry are also engaging with the United States, our colleagues there who are just as concerned as we are with Sweden's proposal. My department is similarly in regular discussions with the affected provinces in regard to this matter.
Senator Eaton: Minister, it's a pleasure to have you here.
Talking internationally, part of your mandate was stock assessments. Fish don't recognize borders, unfortunately. Do we still have problems off Newfoundland and the Grand Banks of overfishing in our waters by foreign factory ships? Is that a concern?
Mr. Tootoo: My understanding is that we do monitor it and —
Senator Eaton: We monitor it but —
Mr. Tootoo: Give me a second here, please. I don't have all the details on that. We monitor outside our international boundaries, and also with Denmark and Greenland, but maybe I will just ask Mr. Stringer if he could give you a little more detail on that.
Mr. Stringer: We're part of NAFO, which is the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization. It has 12 parties at the table, and Canada is one of them.
We now have pretty strict rules and a lot of enforcement. We have vessels that are in the NAFO regulatory area off the Grand Banks regularly. We do regular inspections of others who are fishing in those areas. They have quotas and they're based on traditional quotas. I would say in the last decade to 15 years, the rules have improved. We have good catch monitoring. We're always seeking to improve it, but it has been a manageable issue over the past number of years.
Senator Baker: I will ask the question and the supplementary all at once so you won't cut me off. There's probably no answer to the question I have anyway.
First of all, I would like to congratulate you, Minister, for the fantastic job you have been doing. It is really fantastic to see you as minister of this department and the way people trust you. You listen to everybody, and that's what we want and what we have needed over the years. Up North, we have only had Senator Charlie Watt who has been the stalwart defender of the Nunavut and Greenland fishery zone, and now we have someone in the person of you as well to assist Senator Watt.
Before I ask my question, let me note as well that the government has announced an excellent initiative to re- examine search and rescue, badly needed in Eastern Canada. And they have announced this intensive work. Well, this committee, under the able chairmanship of our chair, is also investigating and now has a mandate from the Senate, chair?
The Chair: Do you have a question?
Senator Baker: I'm just congratulating you. So the government and this committee are on the same wavelength here, and we look forward to having the government pay attention to the recommendations of this committee.
My question is this — and there's probably no answer that I can be given on it. I'm from Newfoundland. It is an island surrounded by water, and we have these small communities where people go out in what we call the food fishery every year. We are given one week in the early summer and one week in the fall in order to allow these people to get their food for the year, whereas the other provinces can go out any time.
Now, fish swim, as somebody noted a few moments ago, so we can't see the logic of this. It has been going on since the 1990s. We would like for you to take a second look at this, because people are going out in bad weather. The chairman will testify that we have winds of up to 30 and 40 kilometres for these small boats in the spring and in the fall. They're putting their lives at risk. People have actually drowned out in this food fishery, because they have to meet this requirement of this week here and this week there, and that's it for the entire year.
Why can't we be treated like all other Canadians are treated? What is the reason Newfoundlanders are discriminated against in this food fishery? The discrimination has been going on since the 1990s. In fact, I was in the House of Commons all during that period. I'm sorry to say, I should have made it a bigger issue.
I would like for somebody to give this committee something in writing or some reason for this. As I say, you don't have to answer it now. Our time is short. But if you could give us something or get the officials, perhaps Ms. MacLean, to explain it to us at some point or give us something in writing or come before the committee. Thank you, chair.
The Chair: Good question.
Senator Baker: The chair says, "Good question.''
Mr. Tootoo: Well, then you have to know it was a good question.
Thank you very much. I will say I'm glad that you think I'm doing a good job. I have been working my tush off to get a grasp of the file, and I am committed to it.
Senator Baker: Everybody knows that.
Mr. Tootoo: I know how important this file is to so many people, especially on the East and West Coasts and in the North.
There are actually two things I have found that everyone has in common: One is that none of them feel they have their fair share of the allocation; and two — and more importantly, and I have told them — they all have an interest in ensuring the sustainability of the stocks and the fisheries for future generations. A lot of cases are on polar opposite sides. I say, "There is something you guys do have in common. Use that as a building block to move forward.'' That's the approach that I have been taking with them as we move forward.
As far as the food fishery in Newfoundland, that's the first time I have heard this issue. I am just kidding. I have heard it over and over.
Senator Baker: It is the biggest issue.
Mr. Tootoo: I'm extremely aware of the concerns expressed by those folks in Newfoundland and Labrador for an expanded opportunity — for a lot of the reasons that you just mentioned — beyond the current 32-day season.
Any expansion would have to be combined with appropriate management measures to ensure that we're not overharvesting. One of the arguments I have heard in the past is it's different in Newfoundland and Labrador because there's a lot more people that participate in that fishery than in some of the other jurisdictions. That is one thing I have heard.
If we do want to move away or look at any expansion of the season, we have to make sure that we have some types of measures in place to ensure that we're managing and know what is coming out of the water and that it is not too much.
I plan on consulting with stakeholders to explore options on that, starting in Newfoundland and Labrador. Hopefully later on this spring, before it starts, we will be able to update you with some further information on that.
Senator Baker: Excellent. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Baker, for raising that important issue.
Senator McInnis: Thank you, Minister, for being here. It sounds like you have been studying quite a bit and getting to know the industry, which is a very valuable industry to the country.
Several times you mentioned aquaculture, and I didn't hear you mention the potential of a national aquaculture act, but I'm sure you probably have heard this. I'm not sure if it's in your mandate letter or not. When you mentionesustainable development of aquaculture, a new act with a preamble that expresses the public support for an orderly expansion of aquaculture would be extremely important, I think.
Currently, we have a patchwork of some 70 pieces of legislation, regulations and so on, with different mechanisms or systems in place in each province. It is controversial where I come from. It is controversial because there's been no social licence gained by those that are trying to impose in certain areas. One of the best things you could do for the industry is to put a new act in place to consolidate much of what has happened and that we have in this country. There's no reason why it should be so controversial, but it is.
My knowledge of legislation is such that, if you started today, you would be lucky to get it in in two or three years' time, but I think one of the most important things you could do in this freshman term of yours would be to put this piece of legislation in place. There will have to be consultation, but you would be surprised how welcoming this effort would be. I urge you to consider that. You can say yes now, if you like.
Mr. Tootoo: That's not one of those simple yes or no questions.
You're right that there is a wide range of views on the question of new aquaculture legislation from the many discussions that I have had in my travels and meetings with the industry, with the provinces and territories, with the First Nation groups and other stakeholders since last November.
Many important arguments have been presented during these discussions and many aspects of the debate need to be carefully considered. I have learned that the issue is much more complex. Someone says it is just as easy with a stroke of a pen as well, but things are not that simple.
As you pointed out, there are very different views and opinions on it. I look forward to your final report on this next fall. It could help me out in that area.
I met with the aquaculture industry everywhere I went. I think they're following me around. They recognize the importance and that the wild stocks of the world are not going to be able to keep up to the population growth. This is something that the aquaculture industry has recognized and wants to be able to address. They have said to me many times that aquaculture is not even mentioned in the Fisheries Act.
I'm going to be looking at different options, whether it be a separate aquaculture act or in the modernization of the Fisheries Act and what would be the best way to deal with that issue, knowing that it is not something that we're going to be able to afford to ignore moving into the future. It is just a matter of sitting down, analyzing and figuring out what is the best mechanism to move forward to be able to achieve what is required.
Senator McInnis: I'm not sure I understand. You said "revised,'' meaning that our study would be "revised.'' I thought it was definitive.
Mr. Tootoo: You guys were continuing on with your review on that. That was my understanding.
Senator McInnis: I saw a final report.
Mr. Tootoo: It was tabled and ran out in the last government. My understanding was that you guys were going to continue your review on it.
The Chair: Just for clarification, Minister, due to the timing of our report, we went back and asked for another order of reference in the Senate Chamber so somewhere down the road we can go back and ask your department about the status of our recommendations to you. That is not necessarily an answer for today. We're not looking for that answer today.
You are correct to the point that we did move further, but we set it down the road a bit to give you and your department time to look at the recommendations and the implementation of those recommendations, and we will have you back in the fall to ask you questions on that, or whenever.
Mr. Tootoo: I look forward to it.
The Chair: Not to cause any stress today.
Senator Raine: It is good to have you before us again. The last time was in the chamber. I have learned a lot more about salmon than I ever dreamed I would, and I'm very concerned, in particular, with the state of the Chinook salmon in British Columbia. I sent your officials some information on it. These are salmon, the iconic salmon, the big ones. They used to be the trophy salmon, this huge salmon. The king of salmon, they called them.
Right now, all the wild stocks of Chinook salmon are listed as stocks of concern. DFO's enhancement program's survival rates for Chinook have steadily declined for the last 30 years and are currently too low to effectively rebuild the runs and provide fishing opportunities. There's a huge potential for tourism and food fisheries should these stocks be rebuilt.
I have been in touch with Omega Pacific, which is a private hatchery located in the centre of Vancouver Island. They've demonstrated how to increase survival rates and have attained up to 25 times greater returns than the DFO hatcheries. This is done by keeping the juvenile fish one year longer in freshwater containment, under strict health conditions, and raising them similarly to the wild life cycle of the salmon before releasing them into the ocean. A lot of research was done in the mid-1980s, when the Salmonid Enhancement Program was being developed, and they studied the S0, as they call them — those are little baby salmon that are released before they're six months old — and then the S1s. The decision was made to go for the S0s because it was going to be less expensive. It costs more money to keep them that extra year.
Whether or not that was the right decision has been debated over the years. I think it is a good time right now to resolve the issue and to really put the science to work to determine what is the best, because there is a debate, and, unfortunately, the debate has become a little bit polarized between a private hatchery and the DFO hatcheries. The sciences are being shut out a little bit.
Dr. Brian Riddell, who is the head of the Pacific Salmon Foundation, thinks the DFO should support an analysis of Omega Pacific and the DFO's past trials by an independent scientist and really figure out what we should be doing because, right now, we risk losing a lot of stocks. They're really at the point where, if we keep doing what we have been doing in the past, we may start losing the stocks in some of these threatened streams.
I am just asking if you could put that on your radar and make sure that it gets looked at — the Chinook salmon issue on the West Coast of Vancouver Island and indeed even in the Salish Sea. In the Salish Sea, there are ongoing studies, but the West Coast of the island has kind of been put aside.
Mr. Tootoo: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Raine: I just liked what you said when you said your mandate includes enhancing species at risk through sound science. That's what I'm asking with regard to the Chinook salmon.
Mr. Tootoo: That is on my radar. I think our salmon enhancement program over there releases more than 3 million salmon annually. It has been in place for over 35 years. We maintain a keen and ongoing interest in investigating new evidence-based fish culture practices that don't present a risk to wild salmon stocks.
We are currently collaborating with Omega Salmon Group Limited, a private, for-profit aquaculture company, to undertake a research project examining alternative rearing techniques intended to increase the survival rates for enhanced Chinook salmon. This is something I know where we are working collaboratively with them and looking at the science to ensure that it is sound. As we have said, we're going to make science- and evidence-based decisions, and we're working with Omega to analyze that information to ensure that it is giving us the right information to make a decision.
Senator Raine: I appreciate that you are doing that. This is a private hatchery that has been raising salmon for 36 years. They do it differently than DFO, and the results are different. I just think it is time to really figure out which way is best.
Mr. Tootoo: Science is science. It doesn't matter if someone does it one way or a different way; the results of science will be analyzed and looked at. Any of our assessments go through a peer review process to provide feedback, and, once that analysis is done and a sound decision can be made based on that science, then a decision will be made.
Senator Raine: Time is of the essence. Thank you.
Senator Baker: I have just a brief supplementary or point to be made on this food fishery. Minister, you are absolutely right. I understand what you said, and I understand what your deputy minister also understands about the food fishery, that you have to be careful about conservation. But, as of two years ago, NAFO opened up its cod quotas off the Newfoundland coast. They have quotas for cod off the Newfoundland coast — 12 foreign nations. Look at 3M, 3L and 3N. They have cod quotas and have a 10 per cent bycatch on all of the catches. Here is the point: These are commercial fishermen from 11 foreign nations. Some of them fish cod commercially. We can't, on the Newfoundland coast, have a food fishery, whereas they can have a commercial fishery.
So the problem is that the circumstances have changed. I guess that's my main point to you. For you to have a second look at it, I think now is the time. You pointed out you'll have a look at it. Now is the time to reexamine it and to look at what the foreigners are allowed to catch commercially off the Newfoundland coast and what they catch and bycatch off the Newfoundland coast. We allow them to do it. Yet, our own Newfoundland people can't go out. They have to suffer the winds and the rages of the weather and put their lives at risk, and they're only going to catch that amount of fish. I'm only going to fill up my deepfreeze; that's all I'm going to do. I'm an ordinary Newfoundlander; that's all I'm going to do. I'm not going to catch anything to sell; that's illegal. Could you keep that in mind as well when you make your decision on this issue?
Mr. Tootoo: As my cousin Jordan would always say, absolutely.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Baker, for reiterating that. Any more questions here?
Senator Raine: If I do have time, I received a letter recently from the Amalgamated Conservation Society, and they were talking about it coming to their attention that First Nations were lobbying for a closure of the Chinook salmon, affecting area 19 and 20 off of Victoria and Sooke. In that area, they are only taking Chinook salmon with clipped fins, so those are salmon coming from hatcheries, not coming from the Fraser River. They just are feeling that this is unnecessary. If there's a closure, it would be really, really harmful to their interests. The Fraser River Chinook stocks are of concern, but you should know that they are not being impacted by the local recreational fishery, and they want to keep that open. It is very important for tourism, and there are all kinds of businesses that rely on that. I just wanted to bring that to your attention.
Mr. Tootoo: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Raine: Shall I give you the letter?
Mr. Tootoo: Yes, it would be great to get a copy of the letter. It is always nice to have a copy of a letter to be able to respond, and we could provide a response to you. It won't take long, Kevin?
Mr. Stringer: No.
Mr. Tootoo: There you go. It won't take long for you to get a response.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Greene Raine, and thank you, minister. Just in closing, before I thank you for your appearance here, I want to advise that our committee is in the process now of finalizing an order of reference and a work plan to carry out what we hope to be an intensive study on the search and rescue operations in Canada. It is something that has been brought to our attention as we travel on other studies around the country. We're giving ourselves ample time to do, hopefully, as I said, an intensive study, with travel to different parts of the country and wherever. We realize it is a very important issue facing Canadians everywhere.
We are more than pleased to see Ms. Thomas become the new Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard. We look forward to knocking on her door and her officials' doors as we go forward with our study. We certainly look forward to working with you, minister, and Ms. Thomas and the department in bringing forward a study that will look at improvements to be made, understanding the challenges that are faced by the department and the government in regard to search and rescue, but also understanding the immense opportunities that are out there to make improvements for the safety of all Canadians. As Senator Baker so amply puts it, coming from the island of Newfoundland, we know how important it is. Certainly, as we gather information for our order of reference, we are learning that it's very important in many parts of this country. We look forward to working with you on that. I just wanted to put that forward.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I have been made aware that you're looking at doing this review. I welcome it and I look forward to seeing it. I am sure the commissioner and I will be more than happy to provide you with any information you require throughout this process. I know you are both from Newfoundland and Labrador. You know what it's like over there. You've got whole north part of the coast up there with about the same amount of resources that we have in Nunavut. Make sure you go up to Nunavut as well. Since becoming minister, and even during the campaign period, that has always been an issue raised not only in Nunavut but throughout the North. I wish you well and I very much look forward to seeing your report. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your time. As you see, we have a committee that works very well together, regardless of our political stripes. We get along pretty well.
I want to thank you for taking the time this evening, and your officials. It's been an informative evening, and I certainly extend the opportunity to welcome you back sometime again in the future. You have the last word, minister.
Mr. Tootoo: It's not very often I get that. Thank you very much. Like I said, it's my first appearance and not my last. I look forward to my next appearance. Thank you very much for the good questions and the letter and information for us to work on. Feel free, anytime you have any issues or questions, to get hold of my office, and we'll do what we can to provide you with the responses to your requests. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned).