Fisheries Committee on April 1st, 2019

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you very much.

I come from New Brunswick and I live in the village of Charlo, next to Chaleur Bay, at the head of the Restigouche River. We are concerned, and my friend Pat Finnigan has been telling me about the striped bass issue in the Miramichi River for a long time. This is of great interest to me for reasons of culture and heritage, and we are also concerned, back home in the Restigouche area, about the salmon fishery.

The figures I hear about the striped bass worry me a lot. The striped bass, which was not present in the waterways around the northwest of Chaleur Bay, is now present in those waters. You can fish them every summer, with both feet on the shore, simply by pulling on your fishing rod. The striped bass is voracious. One of my friends caught a big one last summer. In its stomach, there were six small lobsters of about six inches each, still intact. And yet even though it had these four lobsters in its stomach, the bass took the bait to try and eat more.

My first question is for Mr. Taylor. Are we sure that the striped bass spawning grounds are limited to the Miramichi River? Is there some way we can be sure of that?

Perhaps Mr. Hambrook could also answer that question.

[Bill Taylor]

I can answer that question, and Mr. Hambrook can chime in if I get something a little wrong.

You are correct. The only known spawning location as of today is the northwest Miramichi, but as Mr. Hambrook mentioned earlier, the Miramichi Salmon Association and the Miramichi Watershed Management Committee have done surveys in other areas and there has been confirmed spawning in the main southwest Miramichi.

You're absolutely right. I know a lot of camp owners and supporters of the Atlantic Salmon Federation who angle Atlantic salmon on the Restigouche. Over the past several years now, quite a number of striped bass have been caught in the Restigouche during salmon season, while people are fishing for salmon. In some cases, the striped bass have been cut open, and in some cases, there have been several salmon par or brook trout. We work very closely with David LeBlanc of the Restigouche Watershed Management Committee.

We're hearing that from all rivers. Along the north shore of Quebec, in the Godbout and Moisie rivers, the striped bass are there. When they are caught by anglers, they are opened up and there are numerous par in the stomach contents.

Going back to the prospecting in Labrador, I would suggest that those striped bass that were going up through the Strait of Belle Isle in northern Newfoundland and the north shore of Quebec and Labrador weren't just going there for exercise. They were looking for food, and they're running up rivers and eating salmon par in a lot of rivers along the coast.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

What concerns me a great deal is that as in most rivers that connect to Chaleur Bay, the salmon stock in the Restigouche River has declined significantly. This drop may not be as serious as in the Miramichi, because of the striped bass, but I can assure you that the citizens in the Restigouche area are in panic mode. The stocks have collapsed. I am very concerned by your testimony.

Will reducing the striped bass stocks in the Miramichi River allow the salmon stocks to recover? Elsewhere, without the striped bass, the stocks are declining precipitously.

Ms. Norton, would you care to answer that question?

[Deborah Norton]

I don't know what the question was.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

The question is this: Knowing that the striped bass is in the Miramichi River right now and not elsewhere, yet the stock diminished everywhere else, in all the salmon rivers that touch the Bay of Chaleur and the Restigouche and Bonaventure Rivers, etc., are we sure that decreasing the stock of the striped bass will increase the number of salmon in the Miramichi River?

[Deborah Norton]

They eat. Like I said, they're not bad fish; they're hungry fish. If there's not as many of them there that need to be fed, then we're not going to lose as many salmon smolt, gaspereau, smelt and so on.

In the Restigouche, I believe the issue is going to come to the fact that after the fish spawn, they leave and go back to their native river and are finding their way to the Restigouche in the summer. What do you suppose they're going to eat? In my opinion, it would be par because that's what's there, your par and your trout. I believe that you're going to start seeing reductions in your numbers on the Restigouche as a result of these fish as well.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Yes, but there are already very low stocks in the Restigouche River right now.

[Deborah Norton]

Yes, and they're going to get lower.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Worse.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Arseneault. Your five minutes has expired.

Now to the Conservative side, Mr. Sopuck, for five minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you for the compliment, Mr. Taylor, on our wild Atlantic salmon report that was unanimously adopted by this committee.

In your view, if that report's recommendations were adopted essentially word for word, is that the blueprint for the recovery of Atlantic salmon?

[Bill Taylor]

The quick answer is yes.

I would add that I'm also not so naive as to think that would solve all of the salmon problems. There are factors at play over which we have little or no control, but we can't use that as an excuse for doing nothing.

If the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had the resources and the will to implement all 19 recommendations, that would go a long way to at least slowing the salmon's decline and hopefully beginning the recovery process.

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

In terms of resources, I very much have a different view. They have enough resources; they're just not being deployed correctly, and I'll stand by that.

Mr. Hambrook, we talked a while ago about the projects that you did under the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program. I would note that this government has cancelled the partnerships program, even though this committee unanimously recommended that it continue.

Can you talk about the cold water refugia project that you do? I think that's extremely interesting, and it shows—to be a little maudlin about it—the gentle hand of human beings helping a species in difficulty.

Can you describe that project?

[Mark Hambrook]

We recognize that we get some warm summers, and it's been well demonstrated that water temperatures get to lethal temperatures for salmon. During that period of time, salmon have to find cold water sources or they'll die. They move to the springs and the colder brooks that are coming in to the Miramichi. The water is so shallow at the mouth of these brooks that they go into these areas and then they're picked off by eagles and osprey and other predators.

What we've tried to do is to identify cold water areas and dig out the mouth of the brooks into the river so that we have deeper water where fish can find refuge, deeper water with boulders that they can hide behind. We feel that this can save a lot of fish. You can put a lot of fish into these pools for a very short period of time until the temperature cools off again.

Under that recreational fisheries program, the federal government would provide up to 50% of the cost of doing it. We have been doing one, two, three brooks a year for the last number of years. We think it's made quite a difference on the river and we want to continue to do more.

Last year was the first year that we didn't have access to that fund. We still went ahead and did one, but it really tapped into our resources to be able to fund the whole thing. That help from the federal government was good.

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

Thank you, Mr. Hambrook.

I'd like to bring in our two gentlemen on the phone, if I might.

When I look at the minister's letter in response to the wild Atlantic salmon report, and listening to DFO officials both here and at other meetings, there seems to be an endless request for more studies, more resources, then more studies, and very few action items.

Is that just my impression—again, to the two gentlemen on the phone—or is that something that you believe as well?

[John Pugh]

Look, I go to these meetings. I attend them. As Chief Ginnish said, it's like we're talking but sometimes no one is listening.

I attend both the Maritimes and the gulf region meetings, and the questions I ask are, “We seem to have a problem here with the decline of wild Atlantic salmon. What's the plan? What are we going to do? What action is DFO taking?” We're there, and I think we're all demonstrating that we're willing participants, ready to step up and roll up our sleeves and get engaged and work with DFO, but there's no plan. And if there is one, it hasn't been shared with me.

I've seen the plan that the committee has. As Bill said, it was well done and excellent, but the rubber needs to hit the road eventually. I don't see it, and I don't think that the organizations at the table today see it.

I'll give John an opportunity to chime in there.

[John Bagnall]

I agree, John. I think DFO is very good at science, but not that good at getting that science into action through management. For example, the smolt-to-adult supplementation program was funded by the federal government, and it hit walls. Nothing was done. I think once we get the striped bass population under control, fewer than 100,000 spawners, we could jump-start the salmon population with a generation of smolt-to-adult supplementation.

The program's undergone a peer review, but it's being blocked by DFO. The peer review was positive, so I really don't understand why they couldn't be doing something like that.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We'll now go to the NDP and Mr. Johns, for five minutes or fewer, please.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

I think really what I'm hearing is that the government says they're listening to local knowledge; they're letting local knowledge guide their decision-making when it comes to fisheries management.

I'm from the west coast. Just two days ago the minister wrote an op-ed about herring on the west coast. It's about British Columbia, but it should be related to all fisheries. He said:

British Columbians expect science-based decision-making to inform our fisheries management. Our government is investing in science so that we can leverage new research, and refine and improve our approach to fisheries management. Through consultation, we continue to meet with Indigenous groups, fish harvesters and the public almost every day to better understand their perspectives.

Do you believe this is happening? Do you believe they're consulting you in a meaningful way? If not, what do you suggest would be best practices in moving forward?

I'll open it up, because where I come from, the meaningful part isn't there. The true consultation isn't there. In terms of the indigenous and local knowledge they say is the fundamental principle guiding fisheries-related decisions, we don't find it's there. It's often directives from Ottawa, and often under-resourced. We don't see enough boots on the ground, certainly where I come from.

Sorry, Ms. Norton, you wanted to speak to that.

[Deborah Norton]

There is a meeting that everybody goes to. There are probably 30 people around the table. There's no way you can say that's consultation. We all have three minutes—less time than here—so if we're going to get ideas out and are going to co-manage our watersheds, we have to have more time at the table to talk about them together.

I definitely want to add—and it scares me right to death—that we're talking about managing fisheries right now, and closing a river to fishing is not managing the resource. All we have to do is look to the mighty Saint John River that's been closed for 25-plus years. It will probably never open again, and there isn't one more fish in it now than there was when they closed it. So for heaven's sake, don't contemplate closing our river and thinking that's going to bring the salmon back.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Thank you.

Yes, Chief Ginnish.

[Chief George Ginnish]

We've been at a treaty implementation table for a number of years. We're working on a number of items. We have DFO at the table, and based on the discussions we've had, our feeling is that they aren't ready to negotiate a rights-based agreement with us. Marshall is still providing interim access to our communities. That is huge in that it may not be a river-management thing, but it's certainly a reconciliation. It's an economy-building thing for our communities that needs to happen. In order for that to happen, it has to be at that treaty implementation table, and it's not.

I have to be honest; it isn't going where we thought it would go.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Does it feel empty-handed when they come to the table?

[Chief George Ginnish]

Well, there's a negotiator who's in Atlantic region now. He has another access agreement that's basically much along the lines of what the interim Marshall commercial access was. It's not meant to include the first nations in a full-blown process. It's “Here, we'll buy some licences and give them to you, and that should satisfy your treaty rights.” It doesn't.