Evidence of meeting #7 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 farm.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
Ms. Morton, could you provide the list you mentioned of retired DFO officials and senior scientists to the committee?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Alexandra, it's nice to see you, having kayaked in your backyard before and met you, and certainly admiring your perseverance. I understand you have been at this for some 30 years. I thought it would be good for you to know that it was unanimous in this committee that we hear from you, and we're all very grateful for your being here today.
You must be a person who looks at the glass as being half full rather than half empty, or you would have given up long ago. You're at least joined by MPs from all sides of the House in a commitment to the sustainability of the salmon. We applaud you in that goal.
I'd like to go back to the question of the inquiry. It's something that you called for, and certainly that I called for on behalf of people in the riding I represent and other British Columbians. I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, and my voice was one of many, including yours, and of course an inquiry was called for. You mentioned that it is a government inquiry, but I want to emphasize that it's an independent judicial inquiry, and Judge Cohen has been armed with sweeping subpoena powers to ask anybody anything related to the Fraser salmon.
I want to make sure we get on the record that this was a courageous act and that we are at least in a position to get the kinds of answers we need. You even said in your testimony that we don't know everything. You are modest in saying that, and I think honest in saying it.
Wouldn't you agree that there are some really good things about this inquiry in that it is a judicial one, it is independent, and it does have sweeping subpoena powers?
4:25 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes, and I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.
British Columbia is very happy that this inquiry is happening. The people there are trying to have some faith in it because they're so frightened at this point. The issue of the Fraser sockeye has brought together warring factions from all sides, which is quite remarkable to see, because they simply want these fish.
I've had very good experience in the courts because when I brought the jurisdictional issue before Justice Hinkson, nobody thought it was possible to win on that issue, but it was so clear to Justice Hinkson. I now have charges against a salmon farm for having wild fish in the pens. This judge is allowing us to go forward as much as he is able. So I think the judicial system can see this issue for what it is and can lay it bare a bit more. They are not politicians and don't deal with those constraints. So, yes, I'm very hopeful.
In terms of seeing the glass half full, I'm really just a woman who is cleaning house. They're in the place I love and I just want to see wild salmon survive. I want to be very clear: aquaculture is not the problem; it's just the way this form of aquaculture is being run.
So, yes, I feel very hopeful and hope to be a part of that process.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
John Weston Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Thank you.
Let me share my time with another woman who's also committed to the sustainability of the salmon.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Tilly O'Neill-Gordon Conservative Miramichi, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome. It's great to have you here. I listened with interest to the great presentation you gave.
First of all, I have to say that our government is working hard and is very much aware of this concern, mainly because of the fact that we have two great representatives on this committee, by the names of Randy Kamp and John Weston, who certainly put your cares forth to make sure that we all know the concerns of the British Columbia people.
I was looking at the fact that the BC Pacific Salmon Forum has made several statements. I'm wondering about such things as the number of sea lice on wild juvenile salmon that have been decreasing in the Broughton region since 2004. I'm wondering if you agree with the forum on that.
4:30 p.m.
As an Individual
Absolutely. There were some great recommendations made by that forum, and I agree that the number of lice has been reduced. It's due to the drug. Unfortunately, that's a temporary situation. That's the concern.
However, the most profound recommendation the forum made was the following. The way the limit on lice is right now, there must be less than three motile lice per farm fish, but the forum said that wild fish outside the pens must have natural levels of sea lice on them. That's a step in the right direction, because if you have three motile lice per farm fish and you have two million farm fish, that's going to be too many. So the way they suggested measuring it on the wild fish is a true and valid measurement, which could actually save wild fish. Unfortunately, it has not been implemented.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
When I spoke for the first time earlier, I asked you a series of questions. I had a question in mind about seals. I came across an article in today's issue of The Globe and Mail that labelled seals as serious predators of west coast salmon.
I simply want to know if you have an opinion on this subject. Are seals considered predators? It's a known fact that the seal population has increased considerably. I'm from Atlantic Canada, from Quebec, and we know a great deal about seals. From what I understand, the Pacific seal herd has also grown considerably in size. I'd like to hear your opinion as to whether seals are predators of salmon.
4:30 p.m.
As an Individual
That's a very good question. Fortunately, I just attended a presentation by Dr. Andrew Trites on this exact subject in terms of the Fraser sockeye. What he said was twofold. One is that they pick up the scat from seals and analyze what these seals have been eating. In general, for the harbour seals of British Columbia, 3% of their diet is salmon, which is very small.
But there are specific locations and river mouths. Seals are like dogs: they're very smart, and if they get onto something, they'll stick with it. In some instances, there are seals that have learned to target certain populations of salmon, in which case, as I understand it, they are doing enormous damage. But these are very localized situations that would need to be addressed individually. If you were to go out and kill all the seals today, you would not be protecting salmon, because what they are actually eating is different fish.
One thing he brought up is that one of the fish they prey heavily on, hake, is actually a predator of juvenile salmon. So the seals are helping reduce another predator. You have to be very careful with these natural systems. But no, seals are simply not responsible for what's happened to the Fraser sockeye.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
In conclusion, in the same Globe and Mail article, mention is made of a study done in Scotland—I'm reading this now for the first time—that showed that by removing a single seal from the Moriston River, sport fishing increased by 17%, while the results with respect to other rivers varied anywhere from 1% to 33% in terms of an increase in salmon fishing.
On the east coast, the grey seal, which is in a different situation than the Greenland seal, since the hunting of this species is not only controlled, but tightly controlled, and perhaps overly so in the opinion of some, is found more often in our rivers. This can be seen from the lobster population and increasingly, from the salmon population.
Mention is made of this fact in the article in question. Do you have any thoughts on the subject?
4:35 p.m.
As an Individual
As I said, these are localized effects. I have no doubt of that study, but you have to talk to the scientists who have been following these animals around. Dr. Trites' whole life is studying pinnipeds, which are seals and sea lions, and he is telling us, from looking at their scat—which is a nasty business, but they do it—that 3% of their diet is salmon.
So if you were to take the seals out and allow the hake to rise in population, it's very likely that you would cause more damage than if you left the seals there, which is natural. That said, there are specific rivers where I understand there are problems, and I would say that would require individual management. But overall they are not the problem we're having with our Pacific salmon.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Summing up, I think we need to be cautious about figures and statistics, as you know full well.
As you noted, salmon accounts for 3% of the diet of these seals. The same thing was said about cod. However, it must be remembered that when seals, in particular Greenland seals, eat cod, they do not eat the entire fish, but rather only one small part of it. For that reason, the fact that cod accounts for only a small percentage of the seal diet does not necessarily illustrate very clearly the correlation between seals as cod predators and the exact quantity of fish they consume.
In any event, it is all relative.
Thank you very much, Madam.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Morton, I have just one last question. The B.C. sockeye salmon fishery is currently being assessed to be certified as a sustainable fishery by the Marine Stewardship Council, MSC. There have been objections to this certification that have been filed with the accreditation body in the past little while, and it's based on the sockeye collapse of the summer of 2009. I'm wondering if you can provide any comment on this. I know this is different from the sea lice topic and the fish farm topic, but it's potentially related to this collapse. But overall, on the problem of certifying a fishery, I'm wondering if you could comment at all on this.
4:35 p.m.
As an Individual
If they certify a fishery that's been in decline for 10 years, with virtually no commercial fishing for the last three years, we could take it that the certification is invalid.
If you look to Alaska, they're actually having record runs of sockeye. That's where you might want to go certify a fishery. The western Pacific and Russia are seeing huge runs of wild salmon, so the certification process is....
I don't know how they could possibly certify the Fraser sockeye in the state it's in right now. It's near extinction.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you.
If I have a little time remaining, I'm wondering if there are any last messages you want the committee to hear. Do you have any final thoughts you could leave us with?
4:40 p.m.
As an Individual
Thank you. You read my mind.
I've been out and about in the Broughton Archipelago, a beautiful, remote area, for 26 years, and I just want to tell you that the oceans are not dying. When I arrived, there were no humpback whales. There are now 27 whales that use the area. The sand lance population, which is a very, very energy-rich fish, is bigger than it's ever been. Nobody has seen it this big. We have pilchard back, which were gone for 90 years. The Pacific white-sided dolphin population is in the thousands.
A lot is going right in our oceans, and the fact that our salmon are declining, when the western Pacific and the Alaskan ones are not, is an indication that we can fix this.
I so hope that you let us do this. If fishery management became more localized, if DFO became an organization that worked with people and you took the scientists out of the political body of DFO and let them be what they were at the fisheries research boards.... They were cutting edge. They were the leading fishery scientists in the world.
If we just took a few simple steps, Canada could be an example around the world of how we could have our fish and our communities thrive.
To your committee, thank you so much for having me here today. I see a lot of movement happening, and I'm hoping that we can all follow through and solve this. It's not about anybody losing; we all win. The Norwegians, if they have to go home, will still fish farm. Those European shareholders will be fine. It's the communities of British Columbia we need to be concerned about.
So thank you so much, all of you.
April 12th, 2010 / 4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Morton, thank you for being here.
I just have a couple of questions. One is related to the theory and the reasons for the changes in the salmon run. The second is about your opinion on regulations.
There was an article in the North Island Gazette about the record pink return. One of the things it pointed to, and I'm sure you're aware of it, was the predicted demise of the pinks by 2011 because of fish farms. They have increased the number of sea lice, which, in turn, have threatened juvenile salmon. The study concluded that sea lice typically kill over 80% of the fish in each salmon run, and if sea lice infestations were to continue, affected pink salmon populations would collapse by 99%. Obviously, the article goes on to say, because of the positive returns, this hasn't happened.
One of the things it said was that the extinction forecast hasn't materialized because fish farms are doing a better job of managing their farms, and the extinction prediction was based on nothing changing. However, Ian Roberts, the spokesman for Marine Harvest, which operates the majority of the farms, said they haven't changed their process in years with respect to what they are doing about sea lice. He said they'd been consistent. They're still operating and treating for sea lice in the same way and are consistent. So there's obviously another factor in place.
I'm just asking whether, on that basis, there are other theories behind this.
Second, based on the fact that you disagree with the aquaculture management regime, what, in your opinion, is the best jurisdiction in the world in terms of regulation?
4:40 p.m.
As an Individual
Ian Roberts needs to go under oath.
There's an alliance of environmental organizations in British Columbia called the Coastal Alliance for Aquaculture Reform. They have spent millions negotiating with Marine Harvest. This includes the David Suzuki Foundation, Living Oceans, the Georgia Strait Alliance--large organizations. I would say they arm wrestled—people might use other terms—Marine Harvest into a stringent drug treatment program. When I first found the sea lice infestation in 2001, that was not the case. Ian Roberts would need to check his words carefully to assure you that the drug treatment regime on Marine Harvest was the same in 2001 as it is today. I think he should really be careful with what he has said there.
In terms of what jurisdiction this has worked in, none, zero. It's really an interesting phenomenon. Norway is very different from British Columbia because they actually want people on every single kilometre of their coastline, on every island, and the public don't seem as attached to wild salmon, so there hasn't been the economic issues with salmon farming. There are actually farms everywhere, and they seem a little bit more accepting of it. Except now, because the lice are becoming resistant to all the drugs, there is a lot of conflict going on. I don't know. At this moment, they're trying to pick between wild and farmed fish.
Interestingly enough, John Fredriksen, the wealthiest man in Norway, and also the largest shareholder of Marine Harvest, for some reason did a press conference on a river mouth where he said to get the fish farms away from his river. Of course, we're all wondering, what about our river? Georg Fredrik Rieber-Mohn, the ex-Attorney General of Norway, said, get them away from the rivers.
In 1991--there's a record in Hansard--Jon Lilletun, from the Norwegian Parliamentary Standing Committee on Energy and the Environment, spoke before some federal committee and said they had very strict laws in Norway. Fish farmers said, “We will do as we like. We will go to Canada.” He said, “This is a very hot subject, I think.” He was trying to warn you.
I can't really speak for other countries, but what happened to me, to my community, and my area is that fish farmers came in and we were told that we could govern this industry. We were told we could pick where it would not be placed, and the government actually made maps with red spots. In the waters of my home they said there would never be a fish farm there, and then they put more fish farms in those red spots than the green ones. This is a case of breach of public trust, of mismanagement.
Honestly, the one question I can never answer is, why did we let this happen? Why was it given to the province to handle? That was not legal. Somebody must have noticed that. Why was the advice of scientists within DFO, of scientists within the Ministry of Environment, ignored every step of the way? If the industry had been put into some side channels, kept small, there wouldn't be an issue. We wouldn't be at this flashpoint. But I think we're going to test, in the next few weeks, how much British Columbia really cares about the wild salmon.
There's no reason for this conflict. We could easily have both, but, and this is something in the back of my mind, wild salmon are inconvenient to a lot of people because you have to say no to people who want to dam rivers, log, mine, drill for oil, and on and on. Norway is a big partner in the tar sands oil. Maybe the federal government doesn't want to ruffle their feathers. Honestly, nobody can figure this out. Why would we let this happen? We have one of the greatest fisheries on earth and we're willing to throw it away for some low-paying jobs. I don't understand it.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Thank you very much, Ms. Morton. On behalf of the committee, I'd like to say thank you very much for taking the time today out of your busy schedule to appear before us and answer a lot of the questions our members had. I really do appreciate you taking that time.
Mr. Byrne.