Fisheries Committee on May 10th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. McDonald.

We are now going to go into a round of five-minute questions.

We go to Mr. Strahl.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome some fine folks from my riding of Chilliwack—Hope here, watching us today in the gallery. It is nice to have. I promise I am always this well behaved.

Mr. Stringer, I think you mentioned the special report on wild Atlantic salmon in eastern Canada. I found it very interesting how similar the conclusions are, on a broad basis, to the Cohen inquiry, in that there is no smoking gun. There is encouragement to invest in science, monitor aquaculture, and consider habitat, human effects, climate change, and ocean temperatures.

One specific comment on page 4 says, “Scientists believe there is something going on in the ocean on a global scale that is affecting marine survival”.

Quite frankly, it doesn't sound very scientific. While I think we would all agree that we need to...and DFO has an important science role, it seems a little in the abstract to focus on that.

Perhaps I could get your opinion or the department's view on habitat restoration as it pertains to the Atlantic salmon.

Mr. Sopuck is much too humble to talk about his role in creating the recreational fisheries conservation partnerships program, but this is something that—as I have certainly seen in my own riding—has had a major, tangible impact on salmon-rearing along the Vedder and Chilliwack rivers, for instance.

Could you talk about some of the projects that have been undertaken? Would you agree that perhaps that should be our...? The focus of DFO and government now is on specific habitat restoration, where we can see this is making a real difference on the ground.

[Kevin Stringer]

I'll start by saying the observation that the studies—we can call them studies—are similar in terms of no smoking gun, but looking at a program of work in all of these areas, and frankly, keeping our feet to the fire on all of those issues.... We do take that seriously.

I think both of them land on...there's something weird happening in the ocean that we should better understand, and at-sea mortality continues to be a bit of a great mystery.

Habitat protection, certainly, is one of the important components, and the investments in the recreational fisheries partnership program we believe is making a difference; $4.8 million over the first number of years have gone into projects that would be an Atlantic salmon habitat. I'll give you just a couple of examples of the types of things.

One, for example, the Miramichi Salmon Association, not a huge amount of money, $33,000 to create large, cool refuges. The issue is salmon return to the Miramichi in the summer months. It is warm, and they are constantly seeking out cool refuges, and this actually enabled a group to create some. That's the sort of thing that it does.

Another example is the Cheticamp River Salmon Association, $61,000. This is because of logging practices, because of the way a particular bridge was built. The ripples and runs above and below the Cabot Trail bridge have widened, and in low tides or in low periods of water it is a barrier for those fish to get up the river and spawn. These funds helped put rocks in—it's very simple—actually adjusted that, and now they have a much easier way. It speaks to fish passage.

Those are the types of projects we're able to do with that funding. It's not just that funding. The conservation fund does it, the habitat stewardship program does it; and there are other initiatives that do it as well.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

I have very little time left, but this issue appears to have been studied by government and fisheries committees in the Senate and here. We have looked at this before.

I don't really want to hear from the same 78 experts who just came through the minister's advisory committee. Is there an area, even if you don't have time to answer it...? I'm hoping we can identify gaps in our knowledge and not simply hear from the same folks again, the same solutions that haven't yet solved the problem. That's what I'm interested in hearing about.

[Trevor Swerdfager]

Quick suggestions. I know you have time issues.

What happens to these animals when they go to sea? The short answer is we don't know enough about that. There are some technology solutions and so on that need to be in place. But when they leave their streams, their bays, and so on, where do they go, and why don't they come back?

The second thing, you mentioned weird things happening at sea, not very scientific. Another way of putting it is we know for sure that ocean conditions are changing, we can see that over time. What we're struggling with is how you walk that back to an impact on, in this case, Atlantic salmon, or on your coast, other salmon.

If you look at habitat as a key factor, it's always better to have better quality and more habitat.

But the direct link to productivity and what happens to these animals when they leave their core habitat base, we're still struggling with that. More monitoring of the environment and more monitoring of ocean conditions, and then more effort on what that means to walk that back to the individual species, from our point of view, is critical.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

I, too, would like to extend a welcome on behalf of the committee to our friends from Chilliwack. It's nice to see you.

Ms. Jordan, for five minutes, please.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you so much to the panel for answering the questions. The problem with being sixth is that a lot of my questions have already been answered, but I'm sure I can come up with a few.

There are two things I'd like to focus on. Leading theories on what's causing marine life at sea.... We've said it's happening, but what is the main theory behind what's happening? Do we have any specifics?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

We have a couple. One is it is clear we know for sure temperature in the ocean is changing, both at the surface and below the surface; both at depth and in a variety of areas.

We also know that currents and tidal patterns are changing on all three oceans. We are fairly confident that is having an impact on a whole range of biodiversity, and not just Atlantic salmon.

Generally speaking, it's impossible to say it's a linear relationship. For some species it's good, and for some species it's not. So it's not a one-to-one, all good or all bad.

Why is it changing? A big part of that is around climate change. If we look, in particular, at the interaction between the atmosphere and the ocean surface, there we're seeing dramatic change. We can see it in phytoplankton availability, or lack thereof. We can see it in dispersion of nutrients, or lack thereof.

So we know that the system in which fish are swimming is changing significantly. Can we quantify that back yet to individual population level changes? We're struggling with that. A big part of our modelling work on the oceanographic side is trying to understand that a fair bit better. The prevailing theory is that it's ocean conditions that are changing, and when Atlantic salmon, for example, go to sea, that is causing them to return in smaller numbers than before. We don't have anything that suggests there's a massive predation problem or other anthropogenic sources of concern out there.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Acid rain was mentioned in the advisory report. I'm wondering whether there is any long-term change in the acidity in the ocean that might be—

[Trevor Swerdfager]

There is not much in the ocean.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

No?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

The main impact of acid rain is in the spawning grounds.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

So it's the fresh water.

[Trevor Swerdfager]

Nova Scotia, for example, is an area particularly vulnerable to acid rain. We see changes in the nature and the quality of the spawning habitat of Atlantic salmon. This affects a whole variety of animals.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

You mentioned that when you take smolts and release them after 18 months, there is different genetic makeup, and they go up the rivers and spawn. Do you think that the hatcheries are the best way to try to reintroduce salmon stocks?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

We need to run experimental projects to answer that question properly. The advice we'll provide to our minister is that the science community is going to run a series of experiments on that very issue. We're going to find out what they say. We're going to generate our best scientific advice. In a couple of places, we are going to say we don't know the answer. So we will tell the minister that our advice is based on a certain level of confidence and that there are some unknowns. We will tell the minister what these are and how we propose to tackle them. We don't feel comfortable saying it's all marvellous or all horrible. People who gravitate towards those extremes are welcome to do so, but DFO science will not go there.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

How should the effectiveness of future stock enhancement programs be measured?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

The first part of the answer to that question has to be whether or not there will be future stock assessment programs. Let's assume that we jump over that question, and that's a big assumption. Part of what we're working on with the community is to design monitoring systems to respond to that very question. Part of it will turn on the fitness of the animals. There are ways you can measure that. Part of it will be just numbers. This many go out and do as many or more come back? Yes or no? Productivity can also be measured. So we have some metrics, but there is a fairly substantial jump to make first—whether or not we're even going to have a large-scale reintroduction or supplementation program in Atlantic Canada.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

There were 61 recommendations in the advisory committee report last year and only two have been acted on. Are there plans to go forward with more of the recommendations?

[Kevin Stringer]

I would say we've certainly acted on more than that. What we said we've specifically acted on were the interim recommendations in addition to the 61. These we formally said that we accepted. We're working on many of them and they are consistent with what we have been doing. We're being influenced by the recommendations, and we will do a response to them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

Mr. Arnold.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to all of you for being here today.

We've seen huge swings in our salmon populations on the west coast. They've been almost studied to death, but we still don't have any answers. You talked about ocean temperature changes. Have there been any correlations made between ocean temperatures, marine survival, and those huge swings we saw—from some of the lowest in history to a record in just a couple of years? I'm not aware of that big a swing in ocean conditions.

[Trevor Swerdfager]

You're talking about the Pacific Ocean?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Yes. Is that comparable to the east coast conditions?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

It's clear that changes in ocean conditions are slower and less predominant in the Pacific Ocean than in the Atlantic. We don't know why. The range of variation in conditions in the Pacific, with the exception of the Blob, is not as wide. Up and down the coast in British Columbia, we're not seeing as wide a level of change and therefore we don't attribute that to population change as much.

At this point, we know that adult survival of Pacific salmon is lower than it was in the past. Given that many of the conditions of the past are still the same, it is clear that things are changing. Your colleague said that “something weird is happening to the ocean”. Of course, we need to come up with a better description than that. We know that the level of change in the ocean is significant, and we strongly suspect that this is having an effect on adult salmon survival. Can we prove that categorically through experimentation? No. A big part of what we're going to be doing in the next little while is developing a technology that we hope will allow us to figure out where these animals go. After they leave the strait or whatever, we don't know what happens to them. We're hoping this will help us a fair bit.