[English]
EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, June 13, 2000
• 0915
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)): We'll call the meeting to order.
We have with us this morning Mr. Stephen Chase, who is vice-president, government affairs, with the Atlantic Salmon Federation. Mr. Chase asked if he could have a meeting with the standing committee to outline a number of initiatives in the Atlantic Salmon Federation and to put forward a proposal and explain it.
Welcome, Mr. Chase. The floor is yours for an overview of your presentation. Then we'll go to questions.
Mr. Stephen A. Chase (Vice-President, Government Affairs, Atlantic Salmon Federation): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to be here.
The first order of business is to apologize to the committee for being late. I knew it was going to be tight, but Air Nova was a little slower than usual this morning. My apologies to the committee—they're doing their best.
The Chair: They have a long way to go. They have a long way to go, Air Canada, I'll tell you now.
Go ahead.
Mr. Stephen Chase: There are three things I'd like to bring to the committee's attention for discussion and questions if possible.
First, there is the need for a new and much stronger federal investment in Atlantic salmon conservation and management. Second, there is the follow-up to the Marshall case. The Atlantic Salmon Federation has spent considerable time reviewing this matter through the winter. We think we have some constructive suggestions as to how to address that. Thirdly, I'd like to speak to the Atlantic Salmon Federation's policy on aquaculture and the need for constructive working relationships with the aquaculture industry.
On the first item, as the committee may be aware, wild Atlantic salmon stocks in the North Atlantic have been in a serious state of decline. In the last 15 years they've declined from roughly 800,000 large fish to approximately 80,000 fish returning to North American rivers. Almost all of those rivers are in Canada, between Quebec and Atlantic Canada. There are only a few wild salmon left returning to the coast of Maine.
At the NASCO meeting last week—that's the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, of which Canada is a member—it was agreed by all participants that concerted action is necessary to address the plight of the wild salmon.
I would say at once that the wild salmon is very important to Canada, for a number of reasons. It's not only an indicator species of the quality of the environment—its disappearance is a serious environmental question—but Atlantic salmon also figures very prominently in the economic well-being of Atlantic Canada and Quebec. It's worth millions of dollars a year in terms of revenue and jobs, particularly jobs in rural and other parts of the country where it's difficult to insert other economic development.
Also very important, I think, is the fact that the Atlantic salmon is a prominent part of the social and cultural background of Atlantic Canadians and the people in those parts of Quebec where the rivers are—both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people.
So there are a lot of reasons why we would want to make an investment in Atlantic salmon.
As you may be aware, in 1998 the Government of Canada started an investment in the restoration of the Pacific salmon stocks—roughly $400 million. Of that, about $100 million is going directly into the assessment of the stocks, the assessment and improvement of the habitat, and the development of community watershed partnerships, which we think are necessary to sustain the resource.
• 0920
The community watershed partnerships are particularly
important, because in a period of restraint... There
is all kinds of volunteer initiative that has existed
over the years, but some of it's flagging in certain
areas. We think that because of the huge value of this
free effort and commitment, it would behove the
government to show some leadership, make the
investment, and rally those forces.
The main thing, I guess, coming back to the west coast initiative... It was quite remarkable to me. In your package, the first briefing document outlines where ASF is vis-à-vis this initiative. On the DFO web page for “Pacific”, the outline of the Pacific initiative is presented. Just for fun I took that document and substituted—as you know, with technology being the way it is these days, you can do a word search—the word “Atlantic” for the word “Pacific”. It was quite remarkable: there was a document that provided a blueprint for precisely the same kind of work that we need to do in Atlantic Canada.
Essentially, that is expanded research to assess the state of the resource. We need to know what precisely... Are the fish returning to each river? We need to understand what's happening to the fish once they leave the rivers. According to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans stock status reports, there is a reasonably good production of juvenile salmon, but they go out into the ocean and they don't come back as adults.
Then, the second item is implementation of corrective measures that would protect and enhance those populations in the ocean. Third is a comprehensive salmon habitat restoration and enhancement program in rivers. Fourth is developing those community watershed partnerships.
All of this would come together and for a very reasonable investment over a period of five years the Government of Canada could rally a huge volunteer effort and get some of its scientists who are currently suffering from their inability to do field work out into the field and have them actually doing something that's a valuable resource.
On that, the Atlantic Salmon Federation, for its part, has not been shy about stepping up to the plate and making an investment of our own. For example, in the Bay of Fundy we've put $600,000 of our own volunteer-raised money into an initiative propping up DFO, since 1996. We have another $200,000 ready to put into that project for this year. We've contributed to DFO projects in a couple of areas. Already this year there were two in Newfoundland, one for $25,000 and one for $10,000.
We've been prepared to assist DFO and put our money on the table. At the same time, we have some scientists on staff that we've lent to DFO to help them out. We see this as a two-way street, so now we're encouraging DFO and the minister to help the Atlantic salmon.
I would note, as a word of encouragement, that last week at the NASCO event Minister Dhaliwal appeared and made some very positive statements in support of the need for expanded research into Atlantic salmon and of the importance of an investment. In particular, he mentioned the Bay of Fundy and the Species at Risk Act, and we found that very encouraging.
• 0925
The minister's notes are also included in your
package, along with a
release from the Atlantic Salmon Federation that
followed the minister's remarks. Also in your
package is the press release that
followed the NASCO meeting, as of last
Friday afternoon.
Mr. Chair, that in a nutshell is what we're calling on Canada to do, to help the Atlantic Salmon Federation and the volunteer organizations ready to help out, and in doing that, help the Atlantic salmon.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chase.
Did you want to touch on the other two issues as well and then turn to questions? We can take ten minutes more. State your views on the follow-up to the Marshall case and the policy on aquaculture.
Mr. Stephen Chase: Okay, thank you.
The follow-up to the Marshall case is surprisingly short. Notwithstanding all the effort and all the attention that's been spent on finding our way after the Marshall decision, from the Atlantic Salmon Federation's point of view the greatest likelihood of success in managing the resource is through development of community watershed partnerships with both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people working together to manage the resource.
When I spoke to this committee last fall in Miramichi, one of the principal elements of our presentation was that the Atlantic salmon is de facto not a commercial species. The Government of Canada over the years, since the late 1980s, has made substantial investments in buying out commercial licences throughout Atlantic Canada and Quebec. I think it's a total of $80 million that has already been spent in the licence buyout.
The state of the resource is not sufficient that a commercial harvest could be sustained. Therefore the premise was that this being essentially a non-commercial species, Marshall would not have application. And I think in fact DFO has endeavoured not to include Atlantic salmon in its development of interim fishing agreements.
That said, I think it's important to manage the resource for reasons I've already outlined. And because the Atlantic salmon has important economic and cultural advantages for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, it's best done if we do it together.
So the short story is we see the best thing coming out of Marshall and any other aboriginal-related decision that might emerge from the Supreme Court is for the government to take the leadership and create these community watershed management partnerships and make them work. I think there's going to be a key condition associated with that, because right now DFO is attempting to develop community watershed partnerships.
There are some limited examples. There are four or five in Newfoundland. There's a fledgling one in the Miramichi River in New Brunswick, and there's another initiative they want to start in the Restigouche. But the essential premise is that this has to be the vehicle, the one and only vehicle, through which management decisions are taken. So when the parties come together, it's the watershed management committee aided by proper accurate scientific information that is able to decide what the state of the stock is and whether or not there's a fishery, if there's an allocation. The way it is now, there seem to be two separate doors to decide how the resource is managed. I think this applies to more than just the Atlantic salmon.
We believe there should be one vehicle and one vehicle only through which the decisions are taken, everybody participating on an equal and fair footing. That's the best way to assure the future of the resource.
The Chair: Okay. And lastly, aquaculture.
• 0930
Mr. Stephen Chase: Aquaculture is the third item in your package.
In recent years the aquaculture of salmon, as in speckled trout and rainbow trout, has become identified as a factor in the survival of the wild salmon. This is for three reasons.
The aquaculture industry has expanded significantly in Atlantic Canada, particularly the Bay of Fundy. Scientific studies have shown that the escapees of aquaculture create habitat competition for their wild cousins. The disease that frequently occurs in aquaculture operations can be transferred to the wild stocks. But most particularly, when the wild stocks enter the rivers and mate with aquaculture fish, there's a watering down of the genetic pool. Keep in mind that aquaculture fish are developed from a limited gene pool. They're developed deliberately to grow as quickly as possible to bring them to market. It's a totally different philosophy.
These problems have been recognized, and in the NASCO release that's contained in your package there's a recognition of that.
With that, where's the Atlantic Salmon Federation coming from? We recognize two imperatives here. We understand the economic benefit of a viable aquaculture industry. It's good for Atlantic Canada. It's good for the areas it goes into; it's an important tool you can drop down in places where other kinds of economic development might not work. So we understand the importance of that imperative.
At the same time, Canada is a signatory to the precautionary approach. That's an approach in which Canada has taken the lead, through NASCO. That approach says that protection of the wild stocks is an imperative and that even where there's a reasonable doubt it's important to protect the wild stocks. So there are really two imperatives here. We have to find ways to protect wild stocks, yet at the same time, we understand the importance of the aquaculture industry.
So what has the Atlantic Salmon Federation done? We have tried since January last year... DFO organized a meeting in Montreal at the end of January and they brought together people from the aquaculture industry as well as from the conservation organizations, and we saw that as an opportunity to enter into discussions with the aquaculture industry to see if we can't find some constructive partnerships to work together and address both these imperatives.
The only thing I can say, Mr. Chairman, in a nutshell is that we have tried very, very hard to attain some results from those discussions. Some of the discussions have been good, but the short story is we have not yet attained any concrete understandings. As recently as last week, the majority of representatives from the aquaculture industry are not prepared to recognize that there are in fact impacts on wild salmon. I don't think all is lost, but we really need some impetus from the government to help bring together the parties and recognize that we have a precautionary approach to follow.
The Atlantic Salmon Federation is open to working constructively with the industry. As we see it, the solutions will be found between the parties; we don't see government as providing the solutions necessarily. We're looking for some leadership from Canada.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chase.
Who wants to start? Mr. Cummins.
• 0935
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much.
One thing I just wanted to comment on is your comment about Marshall. I'm sure you're aware that Marshall is only one component of the access that natives have to fish, and that in fact under the Sparrow decision, conservation comes first, native access under section 35 is second, and then comes sport and commercial.
I don't think the Mi'kmaq can prove an entitlement to lobster under section 35. I don't think they'd have too much difficulty with salmon. So I think there may be some issues there with regard to access that may well be worth a second thought.
What I want to get to this morning is the comments you made about the wild salmon policy, if you will, on the west coast, in British Columbia, and the response of the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council to that. Their response, as I'm sure you're aware, has not been too positive. They suggested that the six principles proposed to guide Fisheries and Oceans Canada policy in the conservation of Pacific salmon are flawed. I wonder if we could just take a look at those and see if the problems that the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council has identified in the west apply as well to the east coast.
For example, they suggest here that the proposed principles fail to articulate a single, clear, and unequivocal statement that wild salmon will enjoy management priority when it comes to making decisions about salmon on Canada's west coast. The statement originally proposed by the Fisheries and Oceans science branch was rewritten and compromised. Consequently, a fundamental shortcoming is the lack of an unequivocal, clear, and explicit policy direction.
They go on to say that the federal government policy of the kind anticipated by the wild salmon policy is likely to condone the persistence of management practices that are inconsistent with the precautionary principle and the concept of risk-averse management, likely to put wild salmon at risk. It's a pretty heavy statement, I guess, but I think you understand the intent of it. I'm sure you're familiar with the work of the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council. What is your comment on their concern?
Mr. Stephen Chase: I think their concern is probably valid. I'm not familiar with the document you've cited.
As a starter, I think the precautionary approach applies equally in the Pacific as it does in the Atlantic. We've had discussions with DFO staff to that effect.
I looked at the document that's at the tail end of the first briefing package you have, the document that we did the word search on. I went through that, and we're so far behind in Atlantic Canada that the articulation of principles contained in that document is something we would want to embrace. Then in the course of developing this, we would fine-tune it to address the kinds of concerns the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council has identified. I see them as a starting point, but right now we have nothing. We have DFO scientists who have to stay in their offices in the summer because they can't get A- or B-based funding.
So the first thing I would worry about is getting the process started and then fine-tuning it to ensure that fundamentals like the precautionary principle are attained.
I wouldn't take exception to what that council is saying. It may be valid. They're further ahead than we are.
• 0940
Mr. John Cummins: I couldn't agree more. I think there is a funding problem. The scientists are kept in the office and habitat concerns are not being addressed in the aggressive way we'd like to see them addressed.
With regard to policy, the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council said, and I quote:
That's a pretty damning statement of DFO policy on fish on the west coast. Is that really a model that you're wanting to follow, given the concern that's expressed by this conservation council?
Mr. Stephen Chase: The model we would like to follow is one that conforms to the precautionary approach. DFO has been a proponent of the precautionary approach. Heretofore there's been some doubt on our part that management of wild stocks in Atlantic Canada, whether they be salmon or other, has had the priority that it should have. But I wouldn't disagree with the principle.
I don't know the facts in terms of how DFO has dealt with the resource on the west coast, but we certainly would encourage them to follow the precautionary approach. Where wild stocks are at issue, they should be given priority.
Thank you.
Mr. John Cummins: One of the problems that the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council has identified, and I'll quote again, is that federal salmon policy, guided by the proposed wild salmon policy, may well condone the persistence of management practices that have been clearly demonstrated to be “inconsistent with the precautionary principle and the concept of risk-averse management”.
That's a pretty damning condemnation of the department's wild salmon policy, and that comes not from a political body, not from me, but from the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council. It says to me that there are some huge gaps, if you will... That's a pretty soft word, I guess. There are some huge problems with the department's wild salmon policy.
Mr. Stephen Chase: There are significant gaps on the east coast as well. I think the one difference here is that whereas the west coast salmon have supported a commercial fishery until recently, it's been 10 or 15 years since a commercial fishery of any consequence has existed on the east coast. I think there's a probably a pull-haul there that manifests itself in that statement.
Mr. John Cummins: On that issue, you're correct in a sense, but in another you're not. On the west coast, we've had a commercial salmon fishery on chinook and coho up until very recently, but in the last couple of years that commercial fishery on chinook and coho has pretty much been eliminated. There's an incidental by-catch. Now the impacts of conservation measures are being felt by the sport fishing community and great concern is being expressed.
There's a slippery slope there. You can say we don't have a commercial fishery, but that means that all the resource can support is maybe a minimal sport fishery. If we don't reverse the slope, pretty soon we're not going to have anything. That's the concern. So the fact that there isn't a commercial fishery on the east coast really is a warning sign that the resource is in huge trouble, because you were able to support one in the past.
Mr. Stephen Chase: I agree with you fully. I think we're on the same page there. It's just a more recent decline in the west coast. The problems are fundamentally similar. With some of the problems, whether it's global warming, predation, or a number of the things we've listed here in the briefing document, the parallels are very strong between the west coast and the east coast. The need is equally important on both coasts for concerted action by way of investment, rallying people who are prepared to put up. That's what we need Canada to do.
Mr. John Cummins: Yes.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Bernier.
• 0945
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): I'd like to welcome our witness this morning. I do recognize that I'm no salmon expert, but since I come from Gaspé, I have to say that in my region, you can find one of the most beautiful salmon rivers in the area.
I was particularly interested by your first point. At the beginning of your presentation, you gave a lot of numbers, some of which I might have missed. I didn't have time to jot them all down. You asked that the federal government make an investment so that research on the wild salmon stocks of the Atlantic and on the reasons why they are declining could be undertaken. In your document, you outline measures that could be put in place, but you don't say how much it would cost, although earlier, you mentioned certain sums of money. Could you briefly describe the purpose of the research you suggest should be undertaken, in the context of the five-year plan you advocate, and give us an idea of the associated costs? Do you wish the federal government to be the only entity to invest in such research, or is your Federation prepared to foot a few bills? I know you already do a lot of volunteer work. I'd like to have your comments on this.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Chase: Thank you. I appreciate that question.
Contained in your package, I think about the fifth page in, is a very short outline of the kind of plan we have in mind. I apologize; this is only in English at this point. It identifies the nature of the research and the nature of the corrective measures. We have a price tag on that: $50 million for the expanded research, about $25 million to assess and improve the habitat, $50 million for restoration programs, and about $10 million for the development of the watershed partnerships. It adds up to $135 million. Of course the figures are soft at this point.
To address your question as to who we would envisage putting the money on the table, I don't think in the first instance we're calling on the government necessarily to put all of this money up. It's very important to understand that if a significant commitment is demonstrated by Canada, by the government, it can leverage moneys from the private sector and other organizations such as ours.
We're not a bank; that's for sure. But we do raise significant volunteer money, and we're prepared to step up. As I say, as of this year it will be $800,000 that we put into the Bay of Fundy, and probably another $500,000 or more into other projects, in cash. Plus we have 150 local organizations that are part of the Atlantic Salmon Federation, and I couldn't begin to tally up the value of the volunteer effort. It's very significant. But it needs leadership too.
A significant investment in the order of $70 million to $100 million, which is reported as being spent on the west coast, would rally probably that much more from contributions leveraged from corporations. I know Irving, for example, has been prepared to put $1 million into the Bay of Fundy restoration project. And because of the proximity to the Gulf of Maine, if Canada were to make that investment there, there are U.S. foundations and the federal government.
• 0950
I think the minister recognized last week at the NASCO
that if he goes... It seems to me that later this week or
next week the council of North Atlantic fisheries
ministers will meet. He was going to consider taking
to those fisheries ministers the need to stimulate
collective research into what's going on in the oceans.
So an investment by Canada can leverage moneys from
other North Atlantic countries as well.
That's a long way of answering your question, but if Canada makes something significant as an investment, I think it will bring other people to the table as well.
The Chair: Last question, Mr. Bernier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier: My other question is prompted by the brochure you brought, entitled Join the Catch and Release Club.
Some rivers are in better shape than others since quite a few salmons return there to spawn. Elsewhere, because of bad luck, there aren't as many fish, and anglers are asked to use the catch- and-release method. Consequently, some of them decide not to fish there, but in rivers where they can keep their catch. This is the source of financial problems for people who manage rivers in areas where fishing is regulated. Did the Federation consider revenue-sharing to some extent? Moreover, if conservation control is relaxed, there will be other problems.
I wonder how we could deal with this issue. I did my part with the small budgets allocated in the summer to students; they'll get more, even if it's not enough. But regarding this other problem, I wonder what the Federation could do to ensure that there is some form of revenue-sharing, if at all possible. I do recognize that I'm not an expert in salmon fishing.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bernier.
Mr. Chase.
Mr. Stephen Chase: The Atlantic Salmon Federation is not involved in collecting revenues from the fishery. First and foremost, we're a conservation organization. That's why we advocate catch and release fishing. As a matter of fact, our official policy is that wild Atlantic salmon is worth a lot more in the river than it is in the freezer.
We haven't been hesitant in calling for closure of rivers and supporting DFO where it's called for closure. Most of Atlantic Canada has grilse only—that's the smaller version of the salmon. But being a conservation organization, we support catch and release and we support closure, where it's necessary. We understand the impacts that can have on outfitters. We're concerned about that, because outfitters generally voluntarily support organizations like ours, but conservation is the number one priority.
I don't know if that answers your question.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chase.
Are there any questions from the government? Mr. Steckle.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): I commend you and your organization for the efforts you're making to maintain a population of wild Atlantic salmon.
The lead-in statement in your colourful brochure says:
You go on to talk about all the great and wonderful things you've done, and then you say we're in a calamity situation. How did we get to this point? If in fact your organization is strong, you've done your job, and you've been monitoring the fish over these 50 years, what has happened and who's to blame? Has science not given good information, or have you not listened to science? What has gone wrong in this process?
Mr. Stephen Chase: That's a good question, and I appreciate it.
Mr. Paul Steckle: I don't mean that in a negative way, because the whole fishing industry seems to be caught in this dilemma.
Mr. Stephen Chase: Yes, indeed. I appreciate your introduction to ASF. I guess if I'd been in earlier I would have explained who we were, but you carry that very nicely. We are 50 years old, with 150 affiliated groups and seven regional councils.
• 0955
We have been perplexed in recent years as to just why
wild salmon stocks have declined at the rate they have.
They now stand at roughly 10% of what they were 15 or
20 years ago. It's shocking.
We thought the elimination of the commercial fishery, the big investment Canada made, would be the silver bullet. The same thing happened on the other side of the Atlantic as well, with the same level of perplexity. They have bought out the commercial fisheries and improved the quality of the habitat, yet the numbers are declining. Why is that? I don't know.
I would say to the committee that as important as we think the investment is, I'd be reluctant to say we're going to identify the ultimate cause of the problem. But there are a lot of unknowns, and the further we sort of pull back the veil of just what's going on, the better off we'll be.
Mr. Paul Steckle: I don't know a great deal about the history of your organization, but I know full well that on the Great Lakes we have fish hatcheries that produce a lot of fry to be put back into the system. What effort is being made by your organization to produce these wild species in hatcheries and then release them?
Subsequent to that, if you're doing that, how successful are you in having those returned to the wild in the form of grown species, since we have cormorants and all kinds of things? What are your comments on that particular species?
Mr. Stephen Chase: The Atlantic Salmon Federation has not been involved in hatcheries. The hatchery operations have been the purview of DFO. In fact, DFO closed a number of hatcheries in Atlantic Canada a few years ago.
One of our affiliated groups, the Miramichi Salmon Association, bought the hatchery on the northwest Miramichi and are running it. DFO took over three hatcheries in Nova Scotia after the company went bankrupt.
But to respond to your question on what we have done, the 150-odd organizations throughout our federation have volunteers who aren't shy about getting out there on the weekend. They provide protection through river-watch programs. They've rolled up their sleeves and collected garbage. They have stream-side propagation tanks, where they'll raise juveniles and put them back in the river.
We have a quite highly developed school program, where we have aquariums in 200 or 300 schools throughout Atlantic Canada at the grade three and grade four levels. They raise the fish from eggs to the size where the school kids can go out and put them in the river. This helps build an understanding of the link to the environment.
We've never been shy about rolling up our sleeves and doing the work, but we have never operated hatcheries.
Mr. Paul Steckle: What about baseline funding? How much money is baselined to you on an annualized basis for your organization from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans budget?
Mr. Stephen Chase: As a matter of fact, we're not funded. I had a question recently in this regard, where substantial funding was thought to have gone to ASF, but that wasn't the case. We've been the recipient of some grants or co-sponsorships of scientific activity, which have amounted to $50,000 here and $10,000 there and that kind of thing, but we're not a recipient of government money.
We're self-sustaining. And the flow has been quite the other way: we've been propping up government activity. I mention again the Bay of Fundy recovery with the $600,000 to $800,000 we've put into it. If I were of a certain frame of mind, I'd say we were backfilling what's properly a government responsibility, but we're not saying that. We're saying we're prepared to ask government to do the right thing, but we're also prepared to put our money where our mouth is and ante up and do some work.
• 1000
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chase.
Mr. Steckle, one more question.
Mr. Paul Steckle: Given the fact that you're giving all this money away, you must have a tremendous ability to raise funds. You mentioned that the Irvings are prepared to put $1 million into the program. You must have a number of groups like that, because when you're giving that kind of money away... Are you tax receiptable?
Mr. Stephen Chase: In fact we are. We have a United States board of directors and a Canadian board of directors. They're all volunteers. Because there are a lot of people out there with a strong commitment to the Atlantic salmon, we do have an ability to raise revenue, and we're fairly successful at that. But the revenues go into the costs, and that's why after 51 years of being in existence, we're able to speak up and help out at the same time.
The Chair: Mr. Stoffer.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chase, for coming today.
I want to thank you for clearing up that misconception about funding from DFO. Your organization has not in the past say five or six years received substantial amounts from DFO. Is that correct?
Mr. Stephen Chase: Yes.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.
If I were on the government side, I'd be very cautious about putting millions of dollars into a program when a lot of the rules and regulations come from the provinces themselves in terms of forestry management, mining, and what happens to the birthplace of a lot of these salmon, which is the rivers. We're dealing with five provinces, including Labrador, and obviously all provinces have a different view of how they approach fisheries management. In New Brunswick, for example, they've laid off a lot of fisheries people in their department due to budgetary restraints. Obviously that has to have an effect on fisheries management in that particular province. So has your group as a whole gone to the provinces to look for similar legislation throughout all of eastern Canada so that there could be a commonality in rules and regulations when it comes to salmon habitat?
Mr. Stephen Chase: As a matter of fact, we have. In the course of the review of Marshall, we found it to be very important that the provinces be part and parcel of a management regime with the federal government and other organizations. I think it would be safe to say that there has been quite a bit of pull-haul between the provinces and DFO over the years, so much so that there's quite a bit of overlap and duplication. But even worse than that, there are serious gaps in service, protection being a big one. There could be concerted activity, say, in science. The provinces have scientists too. We have called on Canada to work more cooperatively with the provincial governments.
But you're right, if we don't have everybody pulling in the same direction, then we're going to continue to have the problem. That's why we think that both through this investment and the results from our Marshall review, the community watershed will be with governments participating, both federal and provincial, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, and that's the way to do it.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Does the organization on the east coast work closely with that on the west coast and compare notes?
Mr. Stephen Chase: No. As a matter of fact, we don't have any kind of relationship with the organizations on the west coast. But I'm intrigued by the reference to the Pacific conservation organization, and I might want to get in touch with them.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: They have the same problem with habitat, destruction, deforestation, mining, silt runoff, etc., as on the east coast.
Mr. Stephen Chase: Exactly.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: My last question has to do with the Margaree hatchery. They send a lot of information our way. You say that your organization is not involved in that at all. Would your organization support the efforts of the people who volunteer at the Margaree hatchery? That was downsized from the federal government to basically a cooperative group, and they've been applying for funding for just $50,000 over a couple of years in order to assist them in maintaining one of the great rivers in Atlantic Canada, the Margaree. Does your organization support their efforts in not only applying for the funding but also in terms of what they do at the hatchery?
• 1005
Mr. Stephen Chase: The short answer is yes, we do. We have developed a policy on hatcheries. Hatcheries are not useful in all instances. There are certain situations where a hatchery is essential to the restoration of the stock, but hatcheries for hatcheries' sake... it's a subjective test.
In the case of the rivers where organizations are maintaining hatcheries, that is where the situation is essential. We're not contributing any money to that initiative, not directly anyway, but our Nova Scotia council and the local affiliate organizations are doing their part.
The Chair: This will be your last question, Peter.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: It's a last comment, actually.
I want to thank you for your comment about getting DFO personnel, or even provincial fisheries people for that matter, out of their offices and onto the rivers, lakes, and streams. Our east coast report that came out in 1997 said basically the same thing, that we have to get them out of Ottawa, out of the offices, and at the ground level in order to talk to people like yourself, commercial fishermen, and aboriginal groups to ascertain the concerns and to move a lot faster than they do now in terms of regulation and what can be done.
You're right, there are many reasons the salmon are declining, from bottom trawling to seals, etc. You mentioned Irving. Irving is willing to put up some money, but is Irving willing to change their forestry practices? There's that kind of thing.
Those kinds of questions need to be answered in the long haul, and that can be done by having people on the ground observing what's going on.
Thank you for that.
Mr. Stephen Chase: Just briefly, Mr. Chair, to respond to that, I'm not into touting the good work some organizations have done unless it's warranted, but Irving, for their part, among the forest products companies, has been progressive.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chase.
Next is Mr. Keddy. We did miss one Reform position, but we'll come back to them later. Alliance, sorry.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: They're almost the same, aren't they?
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd also like to welcome Mr. Chase here. It has been a pleasure listening to your discussion here this morning. I'm a member of the Atlantic Salmon Association and the LaHave River Salmon Association. I would like to think that in the future we still might be able to catch a few fish. I'm not 100% convinced that we will be able to.
I have a couple of points to make. I appreciate the position you're coming from with regard to wild Atlantic salmon. I think we have to advocate a bit stronger about it.
I'd like to make some comments specifically about Nova Scotia. I'm not familiar with New Brunswick rivers. On the south shore of Nova Scotia and even on the eastern shore and in the Bay of Fundy rivers, it's not forestry management and it's not provincial jurisdiction, and in my opinion that's the problem. It's not agriculture, although agriculture and farm runoff may be a problem in some of those areas. It's acid rain, and it has been acid rain for a long time. That's federal jurisdiction, and we have to have some strong federal laws to control acid rain.
The Gold River is a small salmon river on the south shore, which I live near. I actually live on one of its tributaries. When I was a kid we had a significant amount of salmon in that river, probably several hundred or maybe even a couple of thousand fish. We'd be lucky to get 80, 90, or 100 going up that river today. Yes, there was some abuse of the resource and some over-exploitation, but it's acid rain and they can't survive.
The other issue you don't touch on enough, in my opinion, is divestiture of the hatcheries. We need those hatcheries, specifically the three that Salmon Care took over in Nova Scotia. In the last ten years we learned that we had to raise river-specific fish in order to have any chance of those fish returning. So it's no good to put LaHave River watershed fish in the Gold River, and it's no good to put Gold River salmon in the Jordan River or in the Margaree. We have to raise river-specific fish.
To me there's an opportunity to build some bridges to aquaculture. Those guys are raising fish every day. If we supplied them with fish, I think we could build some bridges there, and they would raise fish for river-specific salmon to be released.
• 1010
Mr. Stephen Chase: I was trying today to touch on some of the major points, because I know the committee's time is precious, but we have been a very strong proponent of addressing the acid rain situation in Nova Scotia, and I'm prepared to send you some material in that regard.
The president of the Atlantic Salmon Federation, Bill Taylor, and I visited with Minister Anderson not that long ago. Specifically, acid rain was the subject in the southwest highlands in Nova Scotia. Most of the rivers there have been wiped out, largely because of acid rain. So we're well aware of that, and we called on concerted action from Canada to address it. Also, through our U.S. board of directors, we're calling on the Government of the United States to do its part as well, in concert with our U.S. board. I think most of that acid rain results from emissions in the Ohio and New York areas. So we have been attentive to that.
Vis-à-vis the hatcheries, we do understand the importance of hatcheries in certain instances. I would commend the aquaculture industry. There are a number of individual players that have come forward prepared to raise brood stock. They do have a lot of expertise in that regard, and we're appreciative of that. So there are some positive sentiments there as well.
The Chair: This is the last question, Mr. Keddy.
I was just thinking, if there were more fishermen like you, the salmon would be in abundance.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Are you saying I'm a poor fisherman?
The Chair: I'm saying the salmon haven't got much fear when you're fishing.
Go ahead, Mr. Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I don't know if that's a compliment or not.
Mr. Stephen Chase: I've often thought that I'm good for conservation because I don't catch many fish.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I was thinking the same thing.
The Chair: The last question.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I guess the other point—and it's certainly something I've noticed in attending the local salmon association meetings—is that when we have a salmon association meeting, there's always a member from the Horton Band or the Acadia Band, so aboriginal first nations in Nova Scotia are represented. That's been a difficult process. It's not one that's come easy. You've glossed over it a little bit, but I can assure you there was a lot of apprehension and a lot of distrust on both sides at the beginning.
I would still argue that there's an opportunity in all the rivers in eastern Canada that are affected by Marshall and other decisions in the past, Sparrow specifically. The right to take those fish could be abrogated by conservation. For instance, we have small aboriginal fisheries on the Jordan, the Mersey, the Midway, and the LaHave that take in grilse—not multi-sea winter fish, but grilse specifically.
What's the opportunity to work another relationship with our aquaculture communities? If the Horton Band's allowed 200 fish, supply those fish through aquaculture. Don't take away that right to catch salmon if we get salmon back in the future in real numbers. Have you explored that?
Mr. Stephen Chase: As a matter of fact we have. We recognize and support the aboriginal right to have fish for food, social, and ceremonial purposes. No problem.
I have thought that if aboriginals are actively involved, say as co-managers of the resource, a reasonable representation... I think balance is what's important here. Frequently, aboriginals feel outnumbered on these watershed committees. So we need some way of giving them their proper place. Once they have a stake in managing the resource, then I think the right things will follow.
It's important to preserve these fish for future generations. That's part of the aboriginal philosophy. And that's where we're coming from. In the interim, where we need to sustain the food, social, and ceremonial fishery, fish from the aquaculture industry can do the trick. In fact, some of the Saint John River bands right now are beneficiaries of fish from the aquaculture industry to some extent.
• 1015
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chase.
Before I turn to Mr. Gilmour, I don't know whether or not you've been following the endangered species legislation in the U.S. or their decision on declaring salmon as an endangered species, but what are the implications to us of that decision?
Mr. Stephen Chase: I think it should be instructive to us that where we have a species in those locations where we're in danger of losing fish population entirely... I'm thinking of the Bay of Fundy right now, because it's only a stone's throw away from the coast of Maine, where ASF and Trout Unlimited co-partnered to sue the Secretary of the Interior, Babbitt. That was in order to gain the listing. Our understanding is that Secretary Babbitt is quite responsive to this.
Clearly, the lawsuit route is not the way to go, and all steps were taken to avoid going that route in order to elevate the profile of the issue.
I don't think we would see the need to go that route in the Bay of Fundy. Yet at the same time, the same imperative is there. We have the Species at Risk Act pending. Of the 33 inner Bay of Fundy rivers, from the Big Salmon River to the Annapolis River, there are a number where they are already extinct. There are some rivers where you can count the fish on one hand. And the sooner the government brings in the SARA, the better off we'll be.
My understanding is that in a show of good faith there may be some moneys forthcoming this year to start that process—sort of pre-SARA moneys.
I don't know if that gets at your question, Mr. Chairman, but being a lawyer myself, a lawsuit is always the last resort to elevate the profile of an issue or bring resolution, and I wouldn't envisage it in this case.
The Chair: Okay, we'll leave it for now, and I'll go to Mr. Gilmour.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On your brochure you have a diagram of the migration of the wild stocks in the Atlantic. It shows both the European and the North American stocks. Is the decline of the North American stocks similar to the Europeans', or are there differences?
Mr. Stephen Chase: It's fundamentally similar. I was struck last week in listening to people from Russia, Iceland, and Norway. We're hearing the same story. It's the same story for the Pacific stocks too. But even rivers from say the northern peninsula of Russia, the Kola Peninsula, which had very strong stocks, have dropped off at the same rate.
Mr. John Cummins: On your comment about the same problem in the Pacific, I should probably challenge you a little bit on that.
The government would have you believe that. They would have you believe that last year there was no fishery in the Fraser River because of climatic conditions and water conditions in the north Pacific, but those are the same waters the fish from Alaska and the fish from the west coast of Vancouver Island swim. In Alaska their returns last year in sockeye were 50% above expectation, one of the highest years on record, and the returns on the west coast of Vancouver Island were above expectations. Only the Fraser River suffered, and as I said, they're swimming the same waters as those other stocks. The suggestion of government that it's a climatic matter I think is not sustainable. There it's a management problem.
You were asked by the chairman about this U.S. endangered species legislation, and the member from South Shore suggested using aquaculture to raise brood stocks. But the reality is, I think, that that sort of a solution is more of a band-aid solution and it may not be the answer, I would suggest. I'd like your comment on it.
• 1020
My view would be it's not a good solution because
there is the overriding concern that if you use stock
such as that they lack the genetic diversity
that's prevalent in wild stocks. There's always the
risk of transmitting disease to wild stock as well.
I'm sure there are other
concerns. What would your comment be on that?
Mr. Stephen Chase: It's important to be clear here that fish that are pertinent to a specific river are the fish that should be put back. You know, it's a river-specific issue.
I think the idea that Mr. Keddy raised was one that... We have a number of hatchery operations, you know, aquaculture producers. Wild eggs could be taken from say the LaHave River, raised in a hatchery, and those fish put back in the LaHave River. That's what we had in mind.
Mr. John Cummins: Are you talking about a central location? That seemed to be the drift I got from this.
Mr. Stephen Chase: Well, no. There are numerous diverse hatchery operations. You know, there are those run by conservation groups—the Miramichi hatchery, the Margaree hatchery. There are the three DFO got back this year—I forget the name of the company. And then there are the aquaculture-specific operations.
You do raise a point, though. I don't want to go too far off track, but while we appreciate the aquaculture people coming forward to offer hatchery space, that is very much the band-aid solution. Vis-à-vis aquaculture, we need to have some very concrete research and understanding of the impacts of aquaculture on wild stocks and begin to address those problems. We've been doing that with forestry operations and some other operations. There are numerous impacts.
The parties involved, in this case the aquaculture industry, need to come to the table with conservation groups like ASF and the Nova Scotia Salmon Association, the New Brunswick Council of ASF, and others, and work on those solutions. The hatcheries in the interim are great, but they're not the solution.
The Chair: Mr. Cummins.
Mr. John Cummins: The aquaculture minister, Mr. Bastien, had a Dr. Peterson, who is actually a cattle geneticist, do a study on escapees from aquaculture operations. He suggested they were no problem.
But as you are not doubt aware, there was a leaked report from DFO, I think it was last January, that said that while there's no evidence to indicate interbreeding between wild and domesticated salmon will be beneficial to wild populations, there is evidence to indicate there has been a reduction in fitness in wild populations in the short term where wild and domesticated salmon have interbred.
Now, I'm sure you wouldn't disagree with that. When I look down into the United States and I hear reports that on some rivers 85% of the spawners are escapees, is that really part of the problem here when you're looking at salmon on the east coast—that this growth of the fish farms may have contributed to some of the problems?
Mr. Stephen Chase: I think there are a couple of points here. There is no question that scientifically, peer-reviewed science... I met with Mr. Bastien last week, and we have called upon him to take a leadership role in bringing the parties together—and I'm still waiting on that. He has come up with one document, by Mr. Peterson. We have roughly 70 peer-reviewed scientific documents from the North Atlantic, from Norway, Iceland, Scotland, Ireland, Canada—DFO's own published document—plus NASCO, saying that there are adverse impacts of aquaculture escapees for wild stocks. There is no question about that.
• 1025
Just to give you some magnitude, the figures we
saw last week showed that for every wild fish, I mean
for every single wild fish, there's one tonne of
aquaculture fish being produced in the North Atlantic.
So even a tiny fraction of escapees outnumbers... I
think it was estimated that the escapees outnumber the
wild fish by a hundred to one. And you get rivers like the
Magaguadavic River, where last year only 26
fish came in. If you have a cage break, say 10,000
fish released into the wild, it's a
problem.
We've been very careful in trying to work out our accommodations with the aquaculture industry to say we don't think the aquaculture industry is the biggest problem, but clearly it's one of the problems. Then when you get a concentration of aquaculture like you do in the Bay of Fundy, which is the largest aquaculture development site in the east coast, a small problem becomes a relatively big problem in the Bay of Fundy.
I've found in meeting with these people that they're extraordinarily sensitive. You go into a room and you could cut the air with a knife, and they're concerned that we've been pointing the finger at them. I think we're past that point, that we need to attain working relationships to find real solutions. No, they're not the biggest problem, but they're a factor, and the sooner they recognize it the better.
The Chair: If I could, John, on that point—
Mr. John Cummins: Sure.
The Chair: Mr. Bastien has been in the position some time now, as basically I think to put some emphasis on aquaculture within the department and carry that industry. Are you suggesting Mr. Bastien hasn't been able to pull that industry together, or there's not a good working relationship, or what, Mr. Chase?
Mr. Stephen Chase: No, I think Mr. Bastien has probably done a pretty good job when you consider what his title is. He's the Commissioner of Aquaculture Development. His job is to develop the industry. I can't comment on how well he has or hasn't done that.
But I would say this. We have met with Mr. Bastien a couple of times, and as recently as last week I sat down with him. I feel that because of his close relationship with the aquaculture industry he's in a unique position to catalyze some activity between conservation organizations like ours and the industry. I think he might have recognized that.
The Chair: Well, I would hope he does, because we've had him before this committee too, and I'll tell you straight up, we were not impressed, because he didn't want to hear differing points of view. My position is his job in the industry, yes, is to promote aquaculture. But secondly, aquaculture is going nowhere unless the total industry can come together. If there's a problem there, we would certainly like to hear it.
Mr. Stephen Chase: Well, I find it a little incongruent. You see, DFO has two roles. First is management and pursuit of the precautionary approach. On the other hand, DFO also has aquaculture, and then Mr. Bastien is sort of a separate node of activity reporting to the minister to promote aquaculture.
As I said before, we're not against aquaculture, but when you give those mandates of precautionary approach and development of aquaculture, something needs to be done to ensure there's a balance. We think DFO is the party that needs to make sure that balance is attained.
The Chair: Okay, thank you, Mr. Chase.
Mr. Cummins, you have three minutes, and then Mr. Stoffer.
Mr. John Cummins: I just want to thank you for those last comments, because I couldn't be more supportive of them. I think you hit the nail on the head. And further to this aquaculture industry, we know ISA has been found now in Nova Scotia and that it's directly related, and wild stocks are directly related, to fish farms in New Brunswick. So while it may not have been the beginning of the problem with fish farms they may inhibit the recovery of wild stocks.
• 1030
Government has a role here too.
It's government that's built three or four dams in the
Saint John River. It's government that's permitted this
aquaculture to expand without perhaps the strict
controls that are necessary. It's government
that's allowed pollution and dumping in certain
rivers that have affected habitat. So
government has a big role to play in the recovery.
It's my view that sufficient resources are not being dedicated. Organizations such as yours make a great contribution, and I would like to comment on the presentation by your scientist, whose name escapes me. We talked to him at an aquaculture conference in Vancouver at Simon Fraser University earlier this spring. His presentation was second to none. It was outstanding. We appreciate that kind of contribution. I think there's a big job to be done. I think it requires big government resources, and I guess you're not going to disagree with that.
The Chair: Yes, John. We hoped to have this committee go to the east coast to see the very evidence you've talked about, and you prevented us from doing it.
Mr. John Cummins: I'll comment on that, as you've brought that issue up. Yes, I have... because you fellows just wouldn't stand up. You wouldn't stand up when Mr. Bastien came here. You all supported him.
The Chair: Don't go too far.
Mr. John Cummins: Yes, you did. The record will show it.
The Chair: Anyway, there's no sense in our getting into an argument. Make your point.
Mr. John Cummins: You wouldn't stand up to the minister on the Marshall, so I don't expect you to stand up and get things done right on this issue either.
The Chair: We very much stood up to the minister.
Mr. Chase, in response to Mr. Cummins... and then I'm going to Stoffer, Keddy, and Nancy for the last one.
Mr. Stephen Chase: That was my esteemed colleague Dr. Fred Whoriskey who spoke to you. He is a very gifted as well as an animated research scientist. The red carpet is out in Atlantic Canada for this committee to come down to St. Andrews and visit our area. I would very much encourage you to do that. We'd love to have you. In fact, all the preparations have been made.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chase.
Mr. Stoffer, five minutes at the most.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Chase, again, thanks for coming on behalf of the organization. I joined the Sackville River Association; they do a great job as well.
In terms of what Mr. Bastien has done, I spoke to many people in the aquaculture industry, and they don't like him either. So he's between whatever it is that he does. I think it would be advantageous for your organization to write a letter to either the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or to the committee chair here asking us to persuade the government to reconvene a meeting of aquaculture and the Atlantic Salmon Federation at its earliest possible date. The two groups can discuss their concerns in a mutually open agenda.
This loggerhead approach just will not work. When you say you go into a meeting where there's tension, in this day and age it shouldn't be. They have their concerns; you have your concerns. You should be able to sit around a room like this with either the DFO or the provincial body, with somebody as a mediator, and talk about your mutual concerns. You're right, DFO should take the lead on that. I don't know if Mr. Bastien will be the one to do that, but possibly the minister himself, Mr. Dhaliwal, would be the one to do that. I would recommend that you write a letter to him or the committee chair asking that a meeting of that kind be sequestered as soon as possible.
The Chair: Thank you, Peter.
Mr. Stephen Chase: I concur fully.
The Chair: All right.
Mr. Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: There are a few more issues I would like to see fleshed out a little more in our discussions, and the first one is on your statistics.
As you discussed at the beginning, the 800,000 fish that were returning into Atlantic rivers are now down to 80,000. I've heard all kinds of different numbers, from 3.6 million to 1.2 million down to 350,000. I think the numbers are very difficult to ascertain. We're dependent on estimates a lot. We count so many fish. There are periods of time in early spring, late fall when probably fish counters aren't in place. If there are 80,000 fish returning, are you counting multi-sea winter fish, or grilse?
• 1035
Mr. Stephen Chase: Yes, that's multi-sea winter fish. I don't have the aggregate figure with me. It's quite a bit more than that.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's 350,000.
Mr. Stephen Chase: Because the multi-sea winter fish are the ones that propagate the rivers most, it's useful to work with that figure.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: The reason I'm trying to get a realistic reply on that number is because it pertains to the Species at Risk Act, and we're dealing with the legislation now, and certainly I don't think there's any question that Atlantic salmon is an endangered species. So being an endangered species, anything the federal government can do to enhance the reclamation of rivers and the viability of Atlantic salmon smolt in the rivers should be done.
Before this Parliament is out we'll have an act in place that perhaps all of us don't totally approve of, but it's better than nothing. What can this committee do to encourage the government to take a more proactive role? I'm specifically talking about the $50 million the Atlantic Salmon Federation has said is really needed to be spent on the east coast. I realize we have other issues as well, but $50 million is not a lot of money when we're looking at a species at risk, which, if this continues, will be extinct.
Mr. Stephen Chase: I concur with all of that. The figure is actually $100 million.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'll meet you half-way.
Mr. Stephen Chase: We encourage the government to pass SARA and get the protections in place. We're losing stocks in the Bay of Fundy at such a rapid rate that we can't afford to delay in the implementation of this legislation.
I do know this is one area where DFO scientists have been working very hard in Atlantic Canada. I could name names, but I won't. The sooner this relief is passed the better off the wild salmon will be.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.
Mrs. Karetak-Lindell.
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Looking at the map on page 3 of the migration routes, there are quite a few pointing up toward Greenland. We all know that if you don't take care of one component of the cycle, the whole conservation effort is out of sync with everyone's efforts. What has been done to work with the people from Greenland as far as the whole cycle of salmon conservation is concerned? My territory deals a lot with Greenland and we have trade talk efforts with them. That might be one tool that could be part of the discussions in talking with them about conservation. We talked to them already about the turbot quotas.
My other question is that you didn't spend very much time on the aboriginal participation. You talked a little about the food fishery. Is there any membership on the Atlantic Salmon Federation from aboriginals in the Atlantic?
Also, on your conservation and management submission you talk about the broader-based management partnerships, that it has to be all people participating. Does this suggestion involve the aboriginal people also? What participation have they had in coming up with this management idea? Have they been one of the stakeholders saying that this should be the approach?
• 1040
Mr. Stephen Chase: First I'll address the Greenland question.
Through NASCO, extensive work has been done with Greenland in addressing the feeding grounds. The area to the west of Greenland that's shown on the map has been identified as the area where both European and North American salmon go and mix. Through NASCO, a number of the scientific and research initiatives into that area have been conducted.
I would say that the people of Greenland have made a major sacrifice in recent years in eliminating the commercial fishery that they've had. It's not totally eliminated, but compared to what it was years ago, it's effectively eliminated. So they maintain a food fishery.
The Atlantic Salmon Federation has participated over several years in the monitoring of the Greenland fishery. We've contributed money toward the assessment of stock that they've captured. We've done scientific assessment on the genetic makeup of that stock, and so on.
So yes, we have worked closely with Greenland directly. They've made a major sacrifice, as Canada has done its part.
With respect to your question on aboriginal participation, one of the members of our Canadian board of directors is a member of the Kingsclear First Nation in New Brunswick. A number of the local river associations have aboriginal members—I couldn't begin to name who they are—but I think we could have a lot more participation from aboriginals. I think it's essential, given the nature of our policy.
In taking the document that you have there, the short answer is that I have had some feedback from aboriginals as to what's called for. I've had one-on-one discussions with a couple of chiefs, but we haven't consulted widely. I think the time for that is now. Up until recently, with DFO trying to negotiate the interim agreements, it just wasn't the right time to go out and talk to first nations people about this thing or that vis-à-vis the fishery. But I think we're approaching the time, right about now, when we're going to want to visit with bands, chiefs, and councils and try to promote their involvement.
The Chair: Mr. Keddy is next, and then Mr. Cummins has one more question.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: I would like to make a comment and get your reaction to that comment on the Greenland fishery.
I'm sure you're very familiar with the fact that for a long time we didn't know where the salmon went on the east coast, and actually we found out they were overwintering off Greenland. What happened was that the commercial fishery exploited that resource. For committee members who aren't aware of this, they actually put cameras under the ice. You could see salmon standing on their ends, eating off the bottom of the ice. They looked like stacks of cordwood, like pieces of wood standing there. They threw their nets so that they bagged that entire area, and they took everything.
We were not adamant enough and not strict enough in conservation measures and overcatch, and the whole areas of sizes and everything else, and we allowed that to continue.
We also had commercial fisheries in the mouth of every salmon river on the east coast, and we went from having a viable commercial fishery to having nothing, because we exploited that species where they overwintered and where there was one small area at which they had some protection, once we found them there.
We're at the point now where they simply can't bounce back. For a long time, we had a significant population. That population is so low that they've hit bottom and there's absolutely no bounce. So it's going to be up to government, the river associations, and the Atlantic Salmon Federation to allow that bounce to occur and to rejuvenate the stocks.
• 1045
I would like that opinion on the commercial
fishery. I realize it's not an aspect now, but that's
what happened.
Mr. Stephen Chase: That's my sense as well, that there were periods of time when plunder was the order of the day. I can't add anything to that.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Chase.
Mr. Cummins, two very short questions.
Mr. John Cummins: Back in January 1999, DFO released a report, and some people from Moncton, actually, were involved in it: Dr. Wayne Fairchild, Jacqueline Arsenault, and Erin Swansburg, from DFO's gulf fishery centre there.
There has been a historical relationship between spraying in Atlantic Canada's forests and subsequent salmon returns. They found that the more a product known as Matacil 1.8D was sprayed, the fewer fish returned. I understand that product is no longer used in the forests, but there are other products that are of concern, some related to the pulp and paper industry. Of course many of the main salmon rivers in the Maritimes have a pulp mill on them, so there's that concern about the use of some of these chemicals.
Are we doing enough on that issue? How do we really address the multiplicity of factors that result in the poisoning of our streams? How do we get a handle on that?
Mr. Stephen Chase: I think the way we would start, through the kind of investment we're calling for, is a very clearly coordinated activity to address the multiple factors. I think that's one of the hallmarks this committee can recommend to the minister: that with an investment, it very clearly needs to be tightly coordinated so that a well-prepared plan to address these various and sundry factors is rolled out.
It wouldn't be sufficient simply to come up with say $100 million and then have so many players descend on that pie and try to carve it up for individual purposes. Coordination is essential to this, and a very clear, structured plan.
Mr. John Cummins: There's a magazine published in Scotland called The Field. In the June 2000 issue, they talk about wild salmon being extinct in a number of rivers there. I think there are about 16 or 18 rivers that they list. They make the comment:
You could really say that about our west coast or east coast, couldn't you?
Mr. Stephen Chase: I've said it a number of times: the thing that salmon seem to lack is big, warm, brown eyes.
Mr. John Cummins: Yes.
Mr. Stephen Chase: They're not cute and cuddly like a seal or a tiger. I think that's one of the things. If they had big brown eyes, they'd probably be more lovable.
Mr. John Cummins: Yes. You can see a clear-cut, but people don't see the millions of fish swimming past the city of Vancouver, so they don't connect with them. And if they're not there, they really don't know—many people. Maybe that's the problem.
Mr. Stephen Chase: That's all the more reason for government to take the leadership, and with the involvement of organizations like ours and those on the Pacific side, help people understand that even though you might not see the fish, they're there and they're a very important indicator of the quality of the environment. It's a factor. It's like the canary in the coal mine.
The Chair: Mr. Chase, is there anywhere in the world where salmon stocks are healthy?
• 1050
Mr. Stephen Chase: Aside from the aquaculture industry, wild stocks are in serious decline everywhere, throughout the range. Now is the time when several governments have to pull together to do something about it.
The Chair: I know from discussions I've had over the last several months that there are certainly some problems in the relationship between the aquaculture industry and the wild salmon industry. We want to do everything we can to pull them together to develop some understanding, because both industries have tremendous potential. We will see what we can do in that regard.
Thank you, Mr. Chase, for coming. We appreciate hearing your point of view. We will certainly give it some thought and see what we can do on it in terms of encouragement to the minister and DFO and the commissioner for aquaculture as well.
Mr. Stephen Chase: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I appreciate your hearing what I have to say. If there's anything I can provide by way of further particulars, don't hesitate to let me know.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: We do hope to get out to do a tour of the industries down there some time, indeed.
I have just one last comment, committee members, before I leave this. I think this will be the last opportunity for the committee to meet prior to MPs going home to work in their ridings while the clerk of the committee gets the summer to more or less relax.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the clerk of the committee, the researchers, and the interpreters for all their hard work over the course of the year since we started last fall. I think we've done a fair bit of work. We have more to do. We certainly thank the committee staff and the interpreters for their efforts. Thank you.
Voices: Hear, hear!
The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.