Fisheries Committee on Oct. 31st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Cuzner.

Monsieur Blais, s'il vous plaît.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to know how you feel about the fact that the government is about to launch an inquiry into the whole issue of the Fraser River salmon. It looks like you will be caught between a rock and a hard place or, to use a marine expression, left up the creek without a paddle.

I understand you have a responsibility, as part of your job, to allow for the use of the resource etc., but how do you handle a file such as this where you must act immediately when a pressing issue of resource conservation or law enforcement arises, while being aware at the same time that a judicial inquiry will be looking into your every action? Is this not going to put you ultimately in a difficult position that could lead to a lack of initiative or failure to act that could negatively impact your work or your perception when carrying out your job and your responsibilities?

[Paul Sprout]

You were referring to the possibility of a judicial inquiry being called. It's obviously not in place, but assuming that it will be put in place, the department and the Pacific region will have to respond as best we are able to.

We anticipate that when an inquiry is called we would be required to provide information to that inquiry. We anticipate that we'd be in a position to provide testimony to such an inquiry and that we would have to do that as we prepare ourselves for the next year, 2007.

It will be challenging to organize ourselves to be able support the work of a review or of an inquiry and at the same time proceed with arrangements for 2007. But regardless, we will do that. We'll look forward to whatever the results of that inquiry are in terms of providing further ideas or recommendations for addressing the concerns that continue to be of dispute in the case of the Fraser River. From our point of view, regardless of the challenges, we will be ready to provide information and support that review as it unfolds.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

I was rather thinking about a situation that I could describe as follows. You are sitting at your typewriter or your computer writing a text and your boss is standing there and looking over your shoulder at what you are doing. This makes you uncomfortable, obviously, human nature being what it is, and could lead to mistakes.

I wonder how one handles a file that sometimes requires immediate action because concerns have been piling up for several years, a file that is controversial, while at the same time the boss is hovering over you and watching your every move. My feeling is that this could potentially inhibit action. I would like to get some reassurance from you in terms of enforcement. I understand that you are responsible and devoted people etc., but the situation is nevertheless rather ambiguous.

[Paul Sprout]

I understand. I think we will be challenged; there's no doubt about it. I think we will be challenged to be able to support the inquiry and at the same time continue our regular business, get ready for 2007. I think that's the point you're raising.

We are going to have to organize ourselves to be able to meet the requirements of the ongoing work that's going to be necessary, plus fulfilling any obligation we'll have to the inquiry itself. We think we can be organized to do that. I recognize it will be a significant workload; it will be a capacity issue. But that being said, we believe we can separate ourselves, assign people to support the inquiry once it's launched, and at the same time commit to doing the work that's necessary to get ready for the next season, recognizing that it will be a challenge.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Let us look at the substance of the problem in terms of what happened over the last few years. I want to talk about the ratio between the catch for food, social and ceremonial uses and the so-called commercial and other catches.

Did the ratio increase in 2006 or was it roughly the same as in previous years?

[Paul Sprout]

In 2006, the economic opportunity first nations fishery harvested about 10% of the total commercial catch in 2006, and that's with a run size of nine million. The food, social, and ceremonial ratio was about 15%. The food, social, and ceremonial allocation is of a higher priority than the commercial. So when the run size to the Fraser is low.... This year it returned at nine million. Let's pretend it returns at five million. At five million the percentage of the FSC will be higher. The absolute catch will not be higher--it will still be in the order of about a half million or 600,000 fish--but the percentage is higher. When the run is larger, the absolute catch is still 500,000 or 600,000, but the percentage is lower because the run is greater.

So the food, social, and ceremonial number is more or less an absolute number. Every year we try to get that number--500,000 to 600,000, whatever that ratio is. In 2006, the FSC ratio was 10%. In earlier years, when the run sizes were lower, that ratio could be quite a bit higher. It could be 20%, 30%, or even higher. So it varies with the size of the run.

The economic allocation is a ratio that doesn't vary with the size of the run. It will be roughly 10% and will continue to be, regardless of run size.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Monsieur Blais, thank you.

Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you once again, sir.

You're probably aware of our 2005 report regarding the 2004 Fraser River run. The committee made 12 recommendations. One of them, of course, was the use of drift nets above Mission. I'm just wondering, has your department, especially out there, accepted that recommendation?

We have, I believe, over 90 different first nations along the Fraser River, if I'm not mistaken, plus all the commercial activity at the mouth of the Fraser. And obviously, if you want to protect the integrity of the number of spawners going back up, you have to catch them in a way that's the most ecologically responsible. From my understanding, using drift nets is not one of the more ecologically responsible efforts at doing that.

I'm just wondering, is there a prohibition now on drift nets on the Fraser above Mission?

[Paul Sprout]

No, there's not. We have a few groups that are using drift nets. But I want to explain something.

Drift-net fishing is what gillnetters do in the Fraser River. A gillnet boat has a net attached to it and it drifts down the river. That's called drift-net fishing. That's exactly what first nations do in a few locations. I don't think you mean to imply that gillnet drift-net fishing shouldn't occur as well on the Fraser below Mission. I think the issue is whether, where drift-net fishing occurs above the Mission bridge, it is properly regulated and enforced, and to what extent it should be allowed to increase. I think that's what the SCOFO committee raised in their 2005 report.

What we've done in 2006--and in 2005, following your report--is we put in a science review or a study. We wanted to ask the question: what is the better method for fishing--set net or drift net? What's interesting is that it's not clear which one is preferable. Drift-net fishing tends to occur more quickly, people tend to catch their catch more quickly, and as a consequence, they're not fishing as often as with set nets. The other thing that's interesting is that the bycatch ratio changes between set nets and drift nets. What we are discovering is that we need to do more science between these two different fishing types before determining what is the best method to fish.

The final point I wanted to make is that drift-net fishing can occur in only certain locations on the Fraser. The majority of first nations above Mission use set nets and will continue to do that because of the nature of the Fraser River itself. You can't actually drift. The river is moving through narrow canyons and other constrictions, and they have to use set nets, not drift nets. Drift-net fishing actually occurs in the lower part of the Fraser. For first nations the area that's of most interest is the area above Mission, and that is where we have the study.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you.

I'm very pleased to see you've actually said you need more science. This is just a comment, but in the estimates it shows science going down in DFO's budget. So thank you for that.

There one other concern. The Cheam Band came before us last week and they talked about the gravel extraction, which you are probably aware of. What is DFO doing to address the concerns that were expressed before the committee by other people, and of course what the Cheam have done?

[Paul Sprout]

We appeared in front of the committee last year to talk about this issue, and subsequent to that appearance the department launched a review of what happened in 2005. That led to a multi-agency assessment--that's work by the federal and provincial governments. We consulted with the various stakeholders--the communities and the various interests that were concerned about the gravel removal. That finally led to a report with a series of recommendations. That report was adopted by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and those recommendations lay out how we will approach circumstances in the future. We believe that will get at some of the issues that arose as a result of the 2005 incident.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Chairman, is it possible to get a copy of that report?

[Paul Sprout]

Of course.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Mr. Kamp or Mr. Lunney.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

I'll start.

I have two related questions, and I think they'll be brief. They're mostly to give you an opportunity to expand a little on your observation that some of the downsizing of the runs was done after the fishing effort was completed, which obviously raises some questions.

I saw the numbers throughout the summer and I know we started at 17 million plus as an estimate. Early on, it was still around that, then it dropped to 15 million, then to 13 million. Then it went to 11 million, and now it's somewhere between eight million and nine million. The late run, for example, started out at 8.8 million and about halfway through the season it jumped up to 10.5 million, and then there was a lot of pressure from fishermen to increase their allocations and the TAC. Then it dropped back down to around eight million, and now, the last I heard, it was in around five million for the late run. Something somewhat similar happened with the summer run, and it never did materialize, I think.

I'm puzzled by that 10.5 million figure mid-season. I assume it was based on some sort of test fishing and other things that aren't completely the responsibility of DFO. How does that work? Don't we have a problem when we finally realize, after the season is over, that there weren't as many fish? Or were they somewhere and just didn't get past Mission? I guess that's my question.

Related to that, my recollection is that 2002 was a season when a lot of fish made it to the spawning grounds--millions. Could that have impacted at all on the run size in 2006?

[Paul Sprout]

You've accurately described the season. I just want to step back a bit so that all the members understand how it's managed, and then try to answer your two questions.

First of all, we forecast how many fish are going to come back. That's the first thing we do. Those fish are out in the far north Pacific and then they migrate and come back into Canadian waters, and eventually into the mouth of the Fraser. In the process of coming back, as they enter into Canadian waters, we start to estimate how many fish are there. That process is controlled by the Pacific Salmon Commission, which is an international body that is charged with assessing Fraser River sockeye populations in season and then recommending to the two countries fishing arrangements to meet their allocation requirements. As the fish migrate back into Canadian waters and into the mouth of the Fraser, they're assessed. So in any one week that assessment can say, as Mr. Kamp has indicated, okay, we think there are 10 million; no, we think there are 7 million; no, we think there are 5 million; no it's back up to 8 million; it's back up to 11 million. That happens; it's normal management for Pacific salmon. It's dynamic; it changes from week to week or day to day. So that's the normal background work. This is different from groundfish, where you fix a catch or an allocation and you leave it for a year, or in some cases for years. In Pacific salmon, it's entirely the opposite. It's dynamic; it changes.

What happened this year is the Pacific Salmon Commission thought that of the pre-season estimate of late-timing Fraser, which was 17 million, 8 million of that population was late-timing sockeye, and they thought that population was actually 10 million, or even greater. The reason they thought that is because we had extraordinary catches in one of our commercial fisheries in one week. Extraordinary catches are that we caught, in the space of a day and a bit, three quarters of a million sockeye. In a small fishery, in a constrained time period, we caught a lot of animals. The commission thought that this was indicating that the run was not 8 million, but 10 million, or even more.

To top it off, of course, a number of commercial fishermen thought that the run was way greater than 10 million. I received a lot of calls saying “You need to open a fishery because there are millions and millions of fish that are here.” In any event, afterward, after the fisheries had been completed, the commission re-evaluated how many fish they thought were there and they downgraded the run from 10 million to five million, where it rests today.

The reason the run was overestimated was probably due to a couple of things, one of which I pointed out, which is that you had very high catches, which normally would have indicated a very strong return. But in this case, it may well have been that the way the fish behaved is they were very vulnerable, for some reason or other, and that this gave an indication, but it was a false indication.

What we have to do, in terms of the post-season review, is go back and look at what happened and ask ourselves how it happened and what we can learn from it for next year and for the years that follow. That was the same argument that we did in 2002, when exactly the reverse happened: a lot more fish got onto the spawning grounds than we anticipated. In that case there was an underestimate of the run. This is a continuing challenge in managing Fraser sockeye. You're always adjusting to make allowances for the behaviour of the fish. It's an argument for why you have to build in buffers and why you have to build in provisions to allow for some margin for error.

The final point I wanted to answer is could the reduction in the number of fish that came back this year be related to how many fish spawned in the brood year, which I think was your second question, Mr. Kamp. For the late-timing population, we think the answer is probably no. For the summer population, that might be the case. Both the summers and the lates came back at less than expected, so it may well be that for the summers it's the number of fish that were on the spawning grounds in the brood year, or the number of spawners in 2002; and for the late timing, it's probably related to the ocean conditions, which were very inhospitable for some parts of the Fraser River sockeye when they went out to sea as young fish. We think it's likely a combination of those two things, and we will be looking at that in the post-season review.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Mr. Lunney, four minutes.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm interested in that particular comment about inhospitable conditions when they went out. Was that in 2002 or 2003?

[Paul Sprout]

They went out in 2003.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Could you expand on that? What do you mean? Was that particularly cold water or warm water, or what was it?

[Paul Sprout]

These are Pacific salmon juveniles. The adults have spawned, the eggs have hatched, and the fish spend about one year in a lake. They then migrate down the Fraser River, go into the ocean, where they spend two years, and then they come back as adults.

When the fish hit the ocean in 2003, we know that the ocean surface temperatures were unusually warm--one to three degrees above normal. Even though that may sound modest, across the north Pacific it's hugely significant. Those kinds of temperatures change predator-prey relationships and make conditions different for Pacific salmon. It's possible that those fish hit the waters when the conditions weren't optimal and as a result they suffered unusual mortality. When they came back, we didn't see the numbers. We did not get the survival rate you would have otherwise expected.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

That was surface water temperature I think you were referring to. So are you suggesting that perhaps it was high mortality due to predation, or higher mortality from disease?

[Paul Sprout]

It could be a combination of two things: predation, or changes in prey abundance. These young fish are feeding actively. They need to put on weight so they can survive the huge migratory pathway to the north Pacific Ocean. It's possible the prey they normally consume wasn't there in the amounts they required, or alternatively, predators were there in numbers that were different from normal. Probably a combination of those two might explain what happened.