American lake char | American lake trout | char | Great Lake trout | grey trout | lake trout | namaycush | togue | touladi

Arctic char [ Arctic charr | Arctic salmon | mountain trout | charr | Quebec red trout ]

brook charr | brook trout | red trout | salmontrout | speckled trout | squaretail

Arctic charr | char | ilkalupik | mountain trout | salmon trout

Canadian lake trout

Biological and economic viability of rearing brook trout in salt-water tanks, phase II

Far North Food: from Arctic char to processed snacks

Arctic char

Treaty of 7 October 1993 between Canada and the Swiss Confederation on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters

Q-97 — Mr. Stoffer (Sackville Musquodoboit Valley Eastern Shore) — In regard to the Tulsequah Chief Mine project: (a) which of the seventy stream crossings, sixty-four culverts and seven bridges to be undertaken in association with the proposed project pose the highest risks to the spawning or rearing habitats of chinook, sockeye, coho, pink, chum salmon, and to the water quality in the area; (b) which of the proposed undertakings pose the greatest risk to other fish species in the area such as Dolly Varden char and whitefish, and cutthroat, bull and steelhead trout; (c) what are the estimated costs to pump back and treat the metals tailing seepage entering the Shazah wetland as a result of the project operations; (d) what are the concer ...[+++]ns of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans related to post-closure issues and road issues including fish passage at crossings, sediment release from the road, the status of roads post-closure, habitat displacement at causeways, and the geotechnical stability of the road; (e) does the government acknowledge and support requests from the community, fishermen associations, NGOs, and the State of Alaska for the project to be referred to the Pacific Salmon Commission for study and recommendations, and if not, why not; (f) will government approval for the project constitute a breach of the " safe passage" provision in the Pacific Salmon Treaty, and if not, why not; (g) what is the government's methodology for the calculation of reclamation bonding to limit taxpayer liability given the mine's remote location and acid mine drainage risks to critical fish habitat; and (h) why has the site never been reclaimed and acid drainage from the mine, identified by Environment Canada in 1995 as acutely toxic to fish, been allowed to continue to flow into the Tulsequah River?

I see that there are a number of subjects: pollutants, habitat, fish, Canada geese, Arctic char habitat, beluga whales, polar bears, toxoplasmosis, seal mortality, trichinosis prevention, botulism, in fact all these diseases that come from fish or seals.

I would say that what salmon is to British Columbians, what pickerel and bass are to central Canadians, what Arctic char is to northern Canada, cod fish is to Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Text] Question No. 97— Mr. Peter Stoffer: In regard to the Tulsequah Chief Mine project: (a) which of the seventy stream crossings, sixty-four culverts and seven bridges to be undertaken in association with the proposed project pose the highest risks to the spawning or rearing habitats of the chinook, sockeye, coho, pink, chum salmon, and to the water quality in the area; (b) which of the proposed undertakings pose the greatest risk to other fish species in the area such as Dolly Varden char and whitefish, and cutthroat, bull and steelhead trout; (c) what are the estimated costs to pump back and treat the metals tailing seepage entering the Shazah wetland as a result of the project operations; (d) what are the concerns of the Department ...[+++] of Fisheries and Oceans related to post-closure issues and road issues including fish passage at crossings, sediment release from the road, the status of roads post-closure, habitat displacement at causeways, and the geotechnical stability of the road; (e) does the government acknowledge and support requests from the community, fishermen associations, NGOs, and the State of Alaska for the project to be referred to the Pacific Salmon Commission for study and recommendations, and if not, why not; (f) will government approval for the project constitute a breach of the “safe passage” provision in the Pacific Salmon Treaty, and if not, why not; (g) what is the government's methodology for the calculation of reclamation bonding to limit taxpayer liability given the mine's remote location and acid mine drainage risks to critical fish habitat; and (h) why has the site never been reclaimed and acid drainage from the mine, identified by Environment Canada in 1995 as acutely toxic to fish, been allowed to continue to flow into the Tulsequah River?