Fisheries Committee on May 26th, 2015

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to welcome the witnesses and thank them very much for their information. I also think it's a very important study.

Mr. LeBlanc, if I understood you correctly, you said that basic invasive species became a commercial fishery or sport fishery in one area and then is an invasive species in another area. That's quite a problem, of course. I'd like you to expand a bit on what more we need to do on invasive species and on the climate change issue in general. You had mentioned both of these areas. I'd like you to expand on it.

Also, how do you feel about the catch and release? Do you feel that the catch and release program will diminish the number of people involved in the fishery? I want your opinion on that.

[Charles LeBlanc]

This is not my opinion. Well, it is my opinion. The environmental part is my opinion.

I guess the environmental part is whether or not we believe there's global warming. I don't know that we can change the big picture. Can we do something about global warming? Our climate is changing. It seems to be changing. Can we do it? I personally think we could do better in terms of our emissions. We should try to do something, if we can do something. Climate is a very difficult thing. Can we do something? I'm not sure.

You made a very good point about the hook and release. My group is opposed to the hook and release. You can ask for a barbless hook. It has no bearing on the fish. It doesn't kill fish, barb or no barb.

Will hook and release save the fishery? I don't think it was hurting it. Under regulations, I could release a fish whether I had a barb or not.

We are opposed to it because we are losing people to the rivers. I know, as a fact, that we had a large decrease in applicants to the crown reserve systems. People say, “Well, if I can't retain them, I'm not going to buy a licence.” I am sure that the sales of our salmon licences will go down this year. It doesn't mean there's not going to be angling for salmon. It means people can't see the value in paying for a licence when they're going to release all fish.

We're still in the process of selling licences, so I can't give you a hard number. The numbers will come out only next year. But I will stand here and say that you will see an increase in trout licences. In New Brunswick we have two options, because people can fish for trout at a lower cost and they can accidentally hook a salmon and release it. I would assume that's going to happen.

With regard to all of these regulatory changes, though, Monsieur Cusson made the point that we have to walk the walk. I agree with him. We cannot harvest fish and ask other people to stop harvesting when we're harvesting. He is correct there.

I'm in a position where I try to promote fishing, angling. You have to have those people on the river. Those people on the river and those children on the river are your conservationists of the future. If they're not there, they will not care for the river. There is a social aspect to angling. It's getting to own the river and to take it as yours and to defend it at all costs.

By not having people on the river angling and killing fish, are we going to gain more fish? I would think maybe not. If we lose those anglers and if we don't have the kids fishing, that will be a lot worse than anything that global climate change or releasing fish would do.

We need to keep people on the river. That's important. That's what we're trying to say. Release them. They will come back; we can hook them again. True, if we don't have people on the rivers watching, taking ownership, watching for pollution, watching the foresters.... DFO can't do all the enforcement. We need people on the rivers.

You made a very good point, Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Cusson, you mentioned that funding for scientific research on salmon was $24 million in the eighties and now it's down to $12 million.

[Charles Cusson]

That's the overall budget for DFO for Atlantic salmon.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

But I would think that figure does not need to be $24 million but $30 million in actual dollars, of course, if you're going to do the research. Now, you can correct me, if you so desire, but I believe that money is worth a lot less today, and that you need more today than you did in the 1980s.

[Charles Cusson]

I agree.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

With regard to the minimum conservation limits on rivers, did I hear you correctly that 10% of the rivers are monitored?

[Charles Cusson]

Yes.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Is it just because we do not have enough money or we do not have the people in place or what's wrong? This is what causes the decline, I would expect, in the fishery.

[Charles Cusson]

That's partly it.

The thing we need to remember is that, just like the Atlantic salmon itself, rivers, freshwater environments, are very dynamic. In some rivers you can actually count the fish by doing snorkel dives, for lack of a better term. Biologists will go to the top of a river, float down, and actually count the fish, because the water is as clear as what's in my glass here. In other rivers where the water is dark, you can't do that.

In some rivers we are lucky enough to have fish passages, fishways. We can count each fish that comes through individually. In other rivers, there is no possibility of counting fish because of their sheer size, so a lot of times, in the past, they were basing some of their decisions on angling success.

But we all know that the number of fish caught is usually a lot less than the number of fish that are actually in the river.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

You're absolutely correct.

You mentioned, of course, the problem with Greenland and Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. Unfortunately, for governments in this country, fish have not always been the top priority, in my opinion. They're still not, and we need to make them more of a priority. What do governments need to do to convince countries like Greenland...?

I can understand in a way, though. What they're doing is inappropriate, in my opinion.

When we look at the bluefin tuna being netted, it's a migratory source itself—I'm sure you're aware of that. If we conserve, and we fish with rod and reel, and take no more than one-and-a-half per boat, and do everything right, and then they gather up a whole bunch in nets somewhere else, where the stock passes, it eliminates the purpose of what we're doing here. I can see the same thing that Mr. Cleary was speaking to on this issue.

It's desperately unfortunate. It's annoying for the Prince Edward Island tuna fishermen to have to fish fewer tuna. I think it's pretty annoying for people to have to take fewer salmon because countries like Greenland and Saint-Pierre and Miquelon have decided they're going to take basically what they wish. In fact, we're not sure what they take at all. Is it 58 tonnes? Perhaps they're taking 70 tonnes. It likely is, probably.

[Charles Cusson]

And likely more.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

And it's probably even more.

What can the government do? This could go for more than this government. What do governments need to do in order to indicate to countries that we're not going to put up with this anymore? There are measures that, if other things take place in the world, could convince governments to come onside. It's just not fair that Greenland can do this.

[Charles Cusson]

Well, for starters, the people of Greenland, to my understanding, have a right that's recognized worldwide to fish in their territorial waters. As a basis, we don't have a problem with that, but—

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Can I just interrupt, sir? They can fish in their territorial waters, but if it's a migratory source that we're all entitled to—and we have to have agreements, all of us—the world is getting to be a much smaller place and we have to deal with other countries. I'm just wondering what advice you'd have for the committee to convince countries to abide not just by the laws of their own countries—that's no good—but also with the conservation of the stock. I'd like you to answer it in that way.

[Charles Cusson]

At the end of the day it will take some political will for people to realize on both sides of the Atlantic that it's a shared resource. There's an ongoing debate on whose fish they are. Are they ours when they're in our rivers, or are they ours when they're fishing off their coast? I think for the future well-being of the species people will have to come together and come to an agreement to save the fish.

One possibility that could help is there are sometimes side deals that can be made on other subjects or other species.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

On everything else they can.

[Charles Cusson]

I know that Greenlanders fish for species other than Atlantic salmon. There are most likely some species that are a source of controversy for other countries, including Canada, that maybe could be concluded with a caveat, with something in there to help the salmon, as an example.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. MacAulay. Your time is up.

Mr. Sopuck.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Thank you.

I think the Atlantic salmon conservation challenge is fiendishly difficult given the life cycle of the species. I would argue very strongly that Canada has more rights to these fish than anybody else. The country that produces the fish has more rights than anybody else.

It's rather like waterfowl. Canada produces most of North America's waterfowl, and most waterfowl conservation activity occurs right in Canada. Again, I would argue very strongly that Greenland has far fewer rights to these fish than Canada does, given that those are basically our fish that they're harvesting.

In terms of the Atlantic salmon stocks in Labrador and northern Quebec, how are they doing? We seem to talk about the Gulf of St. Lawrence all the time, and the Miramichi and so on. How about Labrador and northern Quebec?

[Charles Cusson]

The regions further north have a bigger challenge because the access is more difficult. Those northern Quebec rivers have, to my knowledge, no proper assessment being done. In Labrador, the Sand Hill River has a counting fence on it. You'll have to excuse me because my specialty is Quebec, but I am aware of what's going on in the other salmon regions. To my knowledge the only counting fence in Labrador is on the Sand Hill River, and they use the results from that river to extrapolate what's going on in other rivers. There's a lack of information to take proper management decisions.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Sure.

I was very intrigued by your testimony about marine survival. From the research you've done and the research you're aware of, what are the specific factors that contribute to Atlantic salmon mortality in the open ocean?

[Charles Cusson]

It starts, as I mentioned, during the first two years of the fish's life cycle when it leaves its native river, when it goes to the salt. Those first two years are where most of the big challenges are, from predation by cormorants or seals or striped bass in the estuaries to predation by predators that are out in the open ocean that weren't necessarily there 20, 30, or 40 years ago, because of changing climate and that type of thing.

One thing that's certain is that we have started to map the route that the juveniles take from the small tracking that we are doing. In a perfect world, we'd be tracking more smolts from more rivers to get a very detailed picture. But we sincerely believe that by being able to augment the amount of research we're doing in the ocean with all partners involved, we will get to the bottom of it as far as that's concerned. What's happening on the other side of the ocean is a big factor that's challenging the survival of the resource.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, MB]

Recently the minister struck the task force on Atlantic salmon conservation, and your organization is on it. It came out with some short-term recommendations and I think is still working on some longer term recommendations. Could you discuss the specific work of the task force, and I would assume that ASF supports the work that the task force is doing?

[Charles Cusson]

We were happy to see the actions that Minister Shea took and also the way the committee was put together with representatives of all the provinces. It was made up of people who are very credible and knowledgeable, with quite a bit of experience in salmon conservation science. People like Mr. LeBlanc's organization were a part of that also.

There have been some interim measures that have been presented to Minister Shea, which she acted upon. The problem right now with part of that directive is that the Restigouche, Matapédia, and Kedgwick are border rivers with New Brunswick and Quebec. So until further notice, individuals who are standing on the New Brunswick side of the Restigouche River have to release anything they catch and use a single barbless hook. Somebody fishing from the Quebec side can keep a grilse using a single hook that is barbless or barbed, or a barbed double hook. We're hoping that there will be some harmonization in place before next Monday, which is the official start of the season.

Another potential problem with that area is that enforcement and surveillance are lacking. Human nature being what it is, some people are obviously not happy that they have to release everything this year on the New Brunswick side, so there could be some abuse. But without having the proper enforcement or surveillance, it will be very difficult to get a handle on that.