Thank you.
Evidence of meeting #5 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was commission.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #5 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was commission.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Thank you very much.
Mr. MacAulay, we'll move into our second round of questioning now, which will be a five-minute round.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome.
This committee is considering initiating a study on aquaculture, and also across Canada and looking at the Pacific salmon issue. If we do that, do you feel that it will create any difficulty? We're looking at a lot of people from the west coast asking where we are, that we should be there, it's a major problem. I'd just like you to respond to that. Would the committee cause any problems by having hearings on the west coast at the same time as the commission?
4:20 p.m.
Senior Commission Counsel, Cohen Commission
No, I don't look at it as being competitive. The commission is going to gather the information it can to deal with its mandate. If others are investigating the same issues from other perspectives, there could be a synergy that would be helpful. I don't see it as being inconsistent in any way.
The question was asked about Simon Fraser University, for example, holding a different forum—
4:20 p.m.
Senior Commission Counsel, Cohen Commission
They have done that. Their focus is a little different, but they attract very good people. We will be there and will learn what we can from that event. It may be part of the final result here.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Thank you very much.
In 2005 this committee presented a report on the disappearance of sockeye salmon in the 2004 run. Now, of course, with the disaster that's taken place, we have heard from a number of people on the West Coast that the difficulty could be with the fish farms and the sea lice.
Looking at the information that DFO has, will the commission go a lot further than DFO has to find out exactly what are the difficulties with the fish farms, where they're located, and these types of things? Obviously the salmon died.
4:20 p.m.
Senior Commission Counsel, Cohen Commission
Certainly the issue of aquaculture is something this commission will look at with all of its resources.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Okay. As you're aware, in the certification process it's viewed as a sustainable fishery on the west cost by the Marine Stewardship Council, and that's being challenged.
How would you respond to that, and do you expect the commission of inquiry to look at that?
4:20 p.m.
Senior Commission Counsel, Cohen Commission
It's an issue that's been raised, but at this stage I can't anticipate how it will factor into the commission's work.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
After the interim report comes out, will there be any hearings with any effect on the final report?
4:20 p.m.
Senior Commission Counsel, Cohen Commission
Yes, indeed, the evidentiary hearings will take place after the interim report comes out. There'll be a great deal of public involvement and formal hearings after—
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I will continue in the same vein as my colleague, Mr. MacAulay.
Considering our work and yours—I understand somewhat better or I am able to grasp better the differences between the two—there are still some aspects that worry me. I have had a look at Commissioner Cohen's resumé. Earlier, you mentioned in one of your responses that some people are working with you and that a fisheries adviser is among them.
I was wondering how the objectives of a commission like that are carried out. We are also sometimes faced with subjects we are less familiar with. The Fraser River salmon is a long way from my home, and I know much less about it. I know about Atlantic salmon and about aquaculture and fishing issues in this area, but I only became familiar with the Fraser River salmon recently. We have consulted experts, and people have come to help us get a better grasp on the subject, but, at the end of the day, we are still just learning about the issue.
My intention is not to question the proficiency of the commissioner or the people who are working on this matter, but I would like to get a better understanding of the dynamics of an issue as specific as this. The matter also involves rather scientific aspects, since there are all kinds of likely causes. Earlier, I talked about poaching, but there are also climate changes, diseases, bacteria, and so on. There is also the pollution in the Fraser River. I have never seen a river in such a dire condition. It really did appear extremely polluted, at least at its mouth. I am used to rivers where I can see the bottom, the salmon spawning grounds, and that is not what I saw at all. I would like to better understand the dynamics of your work on this issue.
4:25 p.m.
Senior Commission Counsel, Cohen Commission
If I understand you, Monsieur Blais, your question is why are lawyers looking at scientific questions.
The commission is very sensitive to the fact that there is a significant scientific component to this. We went to a great deal of trouble to find a well-regarded fisheries research advisor to direct that part of what we're doing. We have a robust plan in place.
The number is not out yet, but the research advisor will be advised by about six members of a panel, all of whom are well-regarded fisheries scientists from academic institutions around British Columbia. They will help to direct the nature of the research. They will establish the terms of reference for the research and then help us find the right contract researchers to do the research, then assist in reviewing the work and establish a process whereby all of the research can be exposed to public criticism and the views of other scientists.
So we're trying to put together a process with the best people we can find, to take advantage of the science, even though we're lawyers.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
In any case, this is not an actual problem. I have learned that, when it comes right down to it, one is able to manage even the impossible in politics. We will now have to lay the groundwork and understand the scientific aspects to get a better grasp of the dynamics.
4:25 p.m.
Senior Commission Counsel, Cohen Commission
As I mentioned before, we're not going to engage in primary scientific research but have our experts look at what has been done from every possible corner they can find. We are under way now in getting this process going. So we're very sensitive to the time limits we're dealing with here.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Wallace, there have been a number of panels and studies and reports over the years. Since 1992 there have been at least four others. In 1992, when half a million sockeye went missing, Minister Crosbie looked at it. In 1994, when over a million and a half went missing, Minister Tobin looked at. In 2002, Minister Thibault pulled a panel together, and in 2004, when one and a half million to two million sockeye missing, Minister Regan looked at it.
In your opinion, what will be different about this inquiry under Minister Shea and Justice Cohen? Specifically, there have been all of these recommendations made by previous panels and studies. One could probably argue that had those been implemented, they may have prevented this problem.
I have a two-part question. First, is that the case? In other words, had the recommendations of previous panels been implemented, could we have avoided this problem?
Secondly, how will this inquiry be different from the previous ones, in terms of getting to the root of the problem and ideally avoiding it in the future and putting us on a path of protecting our wild salmon?
4:30 p.m.
Senior Commission Counsel, Cohen Commission
Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.
The answer to the first part of the question is that it's specifically part of the terms of reference of this commission to look at the recommendations and the responses from DFO from all of these previous reports. I see that not just being whether or not DFO said they were doing this or that, but whether or not that actually happened.
That takes us to the second part of the question. I can't anticipate the results here as to whether it will be different, but it may be that given the ability of Commissioner Cohen to subpoena evidence, which is already under way, in effect, by us having made a demand for discovery of documents from DFO, we will learn more about the responses, including whether or not things are followed through on, whether they were consistent, and so on.
The tools are there for a detailed analysis of the policies and the application of those policies within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.