Fisheries Committee on May 13th, 2019

[Timothy Sargent]

There is a lot we don't know about southern resident killer whales and why their populations fluctuate. We do know that prey and the availability of quality prey are really important, but things like physical and acoustic disturbance, environmental contaminants and climate change, for instance, are affecting not just the killer whales themselves, but also the prey that they feed on.

With respect to the seals or the sea lions, as well, and the pinnipeds, again, it's very complicated. Yes, sea lions can eat some of the prey that the SRKW do, and to that extent they are a competitor, but sometimes they eat competitor species to chinook, so they eat hake, for instance, which are chasing the same fish that the chinook are.

Pinnipeds can also be, themselves, prey not for the southern resident killer whales, but for transient killer whales, which are also in some trouble.

That's why the minister referred to the fact that we do need to understand more the complex interactions between the predator and prey in the—

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

Are there any measures being taken to address the pinniped populations as they are? Their numbers are tenfold what they were in the mid-seventies.

[Timothy Sargent]

On the west coast?

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

On the west coast.

[Timothy Sargent]

Specifically we need to really understand the science better.

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

You're not doing anything, in other words.

[Timothy Sargent]

Well, what we're doing is the science and we're actually—

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

More studies, but nothing on the ground—

[Timothy Sargent]

—bringing everyone together in order to understand what the best way forward is to look at a specific problem.

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

Rather than addressing the probable largest competitor for food, you're doing nothing on the ground.

[Timothy Sargent]

We need to understand whether that's really the case, and what would happen if we were to take measures and how significant that would be compared to the other things that affect southern resident killer—

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

You're not listening to the fishermen on the ground.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

We will now go back to the government side. We have Mr. Hardie for five minutes or less, please.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

What's the latest on the Nathan E. Stewart? Have we cleaned that up? Have we recovered everything there?

[Jeffery Hutchinson]

In a word, yes. The operation is done. There is some ongoing conversation about what residual health impacts there may be, but that's really not a Coast Guard lead or a DFO lead. The cleanup is done and the operation is done.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I'll look a little further down the table, then, and find out in fact what those residual health impacts were because it would appear that there was some contamination of certain beds where the local indigenous people were harvesting. Do we know anything about the recovery of those contaminated sites?

[Jeffery Hutchinson]

I believe we would have to get that information from our Pacific regional director general, which we can do.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I wouldn't mind that information being submitted to us because it's something we need to follow.

One thing we did hear from the people who live there—and this was when we were actually out inspecting small craft harbours—is that they could have, based on their local knowledge, mitigated the damage caused by the Nathan E. Stewart, but they were forbidden from doing so by both the Coast Guard and through workers' compensation in British Columbia.

This all goes back to something we've heard—and our colleagues on the Conservative side referenced it as well—and that is the use of local knowledge and basically trusting them to know what they're talking about when they come up with a suggestion, etc.

I am wondering if, for instance, at the reopening of the Kitsilano Coast Guard base and the training that's going on there, we are in fact doing a better job of understanding the local knowledge as well as giving our indigenous people the tools and the training to do this work. Are we trusting them a little more when they come to us and say that they know how to fix this thing, and do we stop getting in their way when they want to do it?

[Jeffery Hutchinson]

Under the oceans protection plan, we are working diligently to reframe the relationship you've just referred to. One piece of that is regional response planning. I know that sounds like a bureaucratic term, but in fact, our intent under regional response planning is to have environmental response planning that is unique in the world. It will be unique, and is unique, because of its ecosystem approach, for one, and also because it explicitly seeks to incorporate traditional knowledge from indigenous and coastal communities.

In one of my previous answers, I was talking about the search and rescue training we've done on the west coast, and it put me in mind of a video you can find online of one of those training sessions. You hear an indigenous person talking about how special it is to bring what he knows about that area into the training we've provided. I use it only as an example to say that this is more than talk; this is actually happening.

Yes, our training is the formal environmental response training, but we do that with open hearts, open minds and open ears, to hear what our indigenous partners care to share with us. We want to work together, and as I said earlier, regional response planning is the framework that allows us to bring all of that together. Yes, in a word, we need to trust them, and we also need to win their trust for what we bring to the on-water approach.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I wish you well in those efforts, because I think it is really important.

The National Energy Board was called in to do additional review, with respect to the Trans Mountain expansion, and to look at the waterside issues, which I don't think were really even considered when the first reviews were taking place. Was the Coast Guard consulted by the NEB in the process of doing that review? If so, what did you tell them?

[Jeffery Hutchinson]

We have been involved with the NEB review from the early days of TMX. We've provided a lot of information. It would be difficult for me to summarize either from the first consideration or from this consideration, everything—

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

May I ask about your level of confidence with the safety?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Your time is up, I'm sorry. You can't jump in like that.

Mr. Sopuck, you have five minutes or less, please.

[Robert Sopuck, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Thanks.

Regarding the seals, I find your response absolutely appalling. The data are really clear. I'm looking at an article about research one of your staff, Dr. Olesiuk, did on the Puntledge River, in 2010. Three dozen seals had killed 10,000 adult chum salmon in the fall spawning run. There was a study in Scotland....

You talk about indigenous knowledge. The Stó:lo Tribal Council has repeatedly asked for permits, so that fishermen can legally shoot seals. If you cared about indigenous knowledge, you would approve that.

Also, the article states, “In Scotland, a study found that taking a single seal out of the Moriston River increased the sports salmon catch by 17 per cent.”

Mr. Sargent, you will never get certainty in the natural world. Your department has been conducting research for 100 years, yet you're all afraid to use the research to actually do something about it. I would urge you to take the advice of this committee, which has recommended a seal harvest over and over again, unanimously. Yet, you continue not to do it. I find that appalling.

Mr. Morel and Mr. Burns, I want to talk to you about the Miramichi. I've fished it a few times. As you know, the smallmouth bass issue is critical. The Miramichi Salmon Association has come up with a plan to use rotenone to eliminate the smallmouth bass in the Miramichi. This is one of the least toxic fish toxicants you could ever have. In fact, aboriginal people in South America used it to collect food, yet you continue to refuse to allow the elimination of smallmouth bass from that particular lake.

If smallmouth bass get into the Miramichi—they're a non-native predator—that's the end of that multi-million dollar salmon fishery. How could you be so obtuse?

[Philippe Morel, Assistant Deputy Minister, Aquatic Ecosystems Sector, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

The only thing I can do is repeat the answer that my colleague from science provided to you last week. They're conveying some activities to remove the smallmouth bass from the tributaries of the Miramichi River. It's been proven to be somewhat efficient in a way that does not have a negative impact on the ecosystem.

As I told you, this is not my sector. I can repeat that to you, but the only thing I know is that this information has been provided to me as one of the measures being put in place to try to reduce the interaction between the smallmouth bass—