And what if we now looked at what housing has actually produced?

Editorial in response to the FQSA's August 2026 Science Newsletter — "What if the habitat was already here?"

$17.172M | 414 km | ~9.36M UP | 11,121 potential adults

When I read the latest FQSA Science News on housing, I stopped at one passage in particular.

We are shown the Rimouski, the Mitis and the Madeleine. Three examples where human interventions have allowed salmon to access habitats that were previously inaccessible to them.

And I'll start by saying this clearly: yes, habitat is important. Yes, opening up a good section of river can make a difference. Yes, some human interventions have yielded real results.

I have no problem with that. The FQSA even makes an important distinction in its newsletter.

For the Rimouski River, she explains that production potential has increased with accessible habitat, but she clarifies that this potential does not automatically correspond to population size. For the Mitis River, she writes that it would be too simplistic to attribute population changes solely to salmon transportation. And when she comes to the North Atlantic Salmon Habitat Development Program, she further specifies that the 11,121 adult salmon represent production potential, not a guaranteed population increase .

Very well. That's precisely where my question begins.

AFTER $17.172 MILLION, LET'S LOOK AT THE RESULT

Because at some point, you have to go beyond the kilometers of river, beyond the production units and beyond the projections.

Our research revisited the files river by river, project by project and dollar by dollar.

First and foremost: we haven't found the missing $17 million. The funding is back on track. This needs to be stated as clearly as everything else.

• Migration passes have been built or improved.

• Obstacles have been removed.

• Historical structures have been consolidated.

• Salmon have passed through new passes.

• Anadromous reproduction has been demonstrated in some areas.

• Juveniles were observed upstream of some obstacles.

In Sainte-Marguerite Northeast, we even obtained interesting results up to the salmon smolt stage. So no, this program hasn't been useless.

But that's not the question I'm asking.

The question is:

WHAT DOES THIS WORK PRODUCE AT THE END OF THE CHAIN?

We know how to measure concrete.

Now, we need to measure the salmon that's returning.

For the structures and passages, we have completed work, demonstrated operation and the use of certain passes.

For reproduction and juveniles, we have upstream reproduction or juvenile responses demonstrated in some projects.

For salmon smolts, some results are available, particularly in Sainte-Marguerite Northeast.

But when we look at the additional adults attributable to the projects , we haven't identified a consistent total in the public documents we examined. And that's where it becomes important.

THE 11,121: LET'S LOOK AT WHAT'S BEHIND THE NUMBER

The figure of 11,121 potential adults is impressive.

But it is built from only eight projects, and it is heavily concentrated in a few files.

The values are modeled potentials , not additional adults observed.

Here are the eight projects:

Concentration of potential

The immediate conclusion is striking: nearly 80% of the projected potential rests on just three projects, and 94.2% on four. Therefore, the quality of long-term biological monitoring becomes crucial, particularly for Aguanus, Mingan, Saint-Jean, and Sheldrake.

In other words:

Three projects represent nearly 80% of the potential. Four represent approximately 94%.

These cases therefore need to be examined very closely.

AGUANUS — THE BIGGEST PIECE OF POTENTIAL

Aguanus alone represents 4,865 potential adults , nearly 44% of the total.

The Trait-de-Scie pass is functioning and anadromous reproduction upstream has been demonstrated.

That's a real result.

But another major obstacle remains higher up, at the Fourth Falls.

The right question, therefore, is not to say that the project has yielded nothing.

The correct question is:

What portion of the potential of 4865 was actually accessible thanks to the first structure?

MINGAN — WHEN PERFORMANCE FIGURES DON'T EASILY RECONCILE

The use of the pass is demonstrated.

But the public documents examined report about 23% in 2018 , about 20% in 2019 , then a retrospective value of 38% for 2018-2019 .

These numbers can be based on different denominators.

So let's explain the denominators.

And above all, let's publish the long-term biological series that would allow us to evaluate the post-development cohorts.

SAINT-JEAN — DON'T JUDGE TOO SOON, BUT DON'T LOSE THE WINDOW

The project is more recent.

It would be unfair to conclude today that the potential of 1,712 adults has failed.

But it is precisely for this reason that monitoring must be maintained now.

The first cohorts benefiting from the new connectivity are beginning to enter their adult return window.

SHELDRAKE — A REAL BIOLOGICAL RESPONSE, BUT NOT YET PROVEN AUTONOMY

Adults return, and the mounting series is useful.

But the 2025 report still confirms the stocking of 100,000 fry .

We can therefore speak of a biological response and recovery.

But not yet simply an autonomous population produced by the initial intervention.

Our analysis also reveals something important about the current ability of public data to verify adult performance.

Approximately 1,721 potential adults — 15.5% of the total — are associated with projects where an adult series is exploitable, but where attribution remains incomplete.

Approximately 1,948 — 17.5% — are associated with projects where biological evidence or monitoring is intermediate or partial.

And 7,452 potential adults — 67% of the total — are associated with projects where public adult data is insufficient to directly test the advertised potential.

This classification does not judge the quality of the works.

It simply measures the ability of current public data to verify adult performance.

WE MUST STOP CONFUSING CAPACITY AND YIELD

A river can have hundreds of thousands of production units without automatically producing the number of adults calculated in a model.

A habitat can be excellent yet remain underutilized if it lacks breeding stock. A salmon smolt can leave a restored habitat and die at sea.

A fish pass can function even if it is followed by a second obstacle. A fish population can increase while stocking and transporting fish continues.

That is why potential is a planning tool.

This is not a final assessment.

And the August 2026 issue of Info Science itself gives us the best entry point for this discussion, since it recognizes that this is a potential and not a guaranteed increase in populations.

So let's take this logic to its logical conclusion:

If the potential isn't the result, let's show the result. I'm not trying to tear down the PMV.

This research does not seek to demonstrate that the PMV was a failure.

That would be wrong and too easy.

• There are some good projects in this program.

• There are some works that work.

• There is some high-quality scientific research.

• There are real intermediate biological results.

• There is also a $500,000 fund earmarked for the long-term maintenance of the structures, which is a good idea in principle.

• 
  

And our financial reconciliation does not show millions of dollars that have evaporated.

The core weakness lies elsewhere:

WE HAVE DOCUMENTED WHAT WE HAVE BUILT MUCH BETTER THAN WHAT THESE INVESTMENTS ARE PRODUCING TODAY IN ADDITIONAL ADULTS.

BECAUSE THE NEXT DOLLAR HAS TO GO TO THE RIGHT PLACE

• If Corneille is actually producing significantly more salmon thanks to its new connectivity, we need to know.

• If Mistassini transforms his strong juvenile response into adult comebacks, we need to know.

• If Aguanus produces only a fraction of the potential of 4,865 because a second obstacle still limits the basin, we need to know.

This is not to point the finger at those who worked on these projects.

IT'S FOR LEARNING.

Because the next restoration program should be better than the previous one.

And to be better, you need to be able to compare investments with results.

THE QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ASKED NOW

1. How many additional adults attributable to PMV interventions were actually measured, river by river?

2. Are there any unpublished follow-up studies that allow tracking of cohorts until they return to adulthood?

3. How was the potential of 4,865 adults at Aguanus calculated given the residual obstacle mentioned above?

4. Why do Mingan performance values differ across documents, and which series should be used as a reference?

5. How many of the 414 km are currently accessible and used without seeding, transport or other human intervention?

6. How many of the approximately 9.36 million UPs are actually occupied by anadromous salmon?

7. What is the current balance of the $500,000 maintenance fund and what projects have been funded since the end of the program?

   
   

THE QUESTION THAT REMAINS

Info Science poses the following question:

"What if the habitat was already there?"

Having thoroughly examined the PMV Côte-Nord project, I would simply add:

WHAT IF WE NOW LOOKED AT WHAT THIS HABITAT HAS ACTUALLY PRODUCED?

• We know the $17.172 million raised.

• We know the 414 kilometers of river.

• We know the approximately 9.36 million production units.

• We know the potential of 11,121 adult salmon.

  
  

NOW, LET'S SHOW THE SALMON.

Not in a formula.

Not in a projection.

Not in a "could produce" scenario.

How many additional adult salmon actually return as a result of these investments?

If the answer exists, let's publish it.

If it doesn't already exist, let's finally build the monitoring system that will allow us to obtain it.

Because a restoration program should not end when the concrete is poured, when a fish pass is opened, or when a fish passes through the structure for the first time.

It should end when we are able to look at the river a few years later and answer a very simple question:

HOW MANY MORE SALMON ARE RETURNING BECAUSE OF WHAT WE DID?

Main sources

[1] Quebec Federation for Atlantic Salmon (FQSA), Info Science — August 2026, “What if the habitat was already there?”

[2] Quebec Federation for Atlantic Salmon, Final Report of the Atlantic Salmon Habitat Enhancement Program of the North Shore — 2010-2020 review.

[3] Quebec Federation for Atlantic Salmon, PMV annual reports, notably 2015, 2016 and 2018-2019-2020.

[4] MELCCFP, Salmon farming in Quebec — 2025 review.

[5] Consolidated audit PMV Côte-Nord 2026 — financial reconciliation, river-by-river fact sheets, potential analysis, biological monitoring and documentary anomalies.

Methodological note: The terms "potential adults," "theoretical potential," and "adult yield" are intentionally distinguished. The absence of an attributable public total does not mean the absence of biological benefits; it means that the final adult yield cannot be consistently quantified across the public records examined.