Evidence of meeting #38 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was research.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I apologize for two reasons. I apologize for cutting you off, sir, and I apologize that I was mistaken earlier. It looks like the bells are going ahead at the prescribed time, but we're still going to put seven minutes to Mr. Donnelly and then we'll have to adjourn shortly thereafter.
Yes, Mr. Hardie.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
On a quick point of order, Mr. Chair, I want to challenge Mr. Sopuck a little bit on his treatment of Dr. Miller-Saunders. We used to not muzzle science.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
I'm sorry, Mr. Hardie, was there a point of order there, from the Standing Orders?
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Basically, we're no longer muzzling science.
We bring people in to hear what they have to say.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Okay, never mind. That's not a point of order, sir.
We'll go on to Mr. Donnelly for seven minutes, please.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all our witnesses. I appreciate all five of you taking the time to provide your input and testimony to this Fisheries Act review.
Dr. Miller-Saunders, I think I heard in your presentation that you did find evidence of disease from a fish farm in terms of impacts on wild salmon. Could you clarify that?
Head of Molecular Genetics, Pacific Biological Station, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
We found evidence of a disease that is considered the third most important emerging disease in Norwegian salmon. We have not yet demonstrated whether it impacts wild fish, merely that a disease that had not previously been diagnosed in B.C. actually is present there.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you.
Earlier Mr. Sopuck asked you a question and didn't allow you an opportunity to answer in terms of his comment about your agenda. Did you want to respond to that?
Head of Molecular Genetics, Pacific Biological Station, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Well, first of all, I was asked to present at this meeting. I actually didn't submit something.
I staunchly stand that I am neither an anti-aquaculture advocate nor an aquaculture advocate. I really do believe that scientists need to be objective. I may be criticized for that viewpoint, but I think it is really important if we're going to be providing balance to policy decisions.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you.
You ran out of time in your very comprehensive presentation to the committee. Were there any particular specific points you missed that you want to add right now?
Head of Molecular Genetics, Pacific Biological Station, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
You know, I want to say that a lot of change has happened in the department in the last year, and I think we really are moving in a really positive direction. I am not trying to be critical of Fisheries and Oceans at all. I love my job there, and I appreciate the kind of science I am allowed to do. I did weigh in a little bit on some of the things that concern me about this policy, and you're right, under the last administration I was not able to weigh in on anything like this.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Great. Thank you for providing testimony to our committee and for the work you do.
I'd like to turn to Watershed Watch and Ms. Azeez.
Are there are any examples of municipalities that have done a good job on fish passage when they've upgraded their flood works? Can you comment on that, and maybe give us examples of farms and fish working together?
Project Manager, Watershed Watch Salmon Society
Yes, of course. I can give you a couple of examples on that.
Out in Maple Ridge there is Spencer Creek, where a tidal gate was put in. That has actually seen some really positive benefits where chum salmon, which did not previously swim up the tributary, have had a chance to access habitat again. That has been really positive.
The City of Surrey has been doing some pretty amazing work, on their own, I have to add, without very much federal support at all, on improving various infrastructure there. One example is Bon Accord Creek that flows into the Fraser River. There is another creek, which I've forgotten the name of, that flows into Boundary Bay. The City of Surrey has been working on both of those creeks.
As to examples of fish and farms working together—
Project Manager, Watershed Watch Salmon Society
As to examples of fish and farms, we've already mentioned the cows and fish program out in Alberta. In B.C. there is Farmland Advantage, which is from the Kootenays. They are trying to provide incentives to farmers, again based on ecosystem services, to protect riparian zones. They've just introduced that concept to Langley, so we have a few farms in Langley that buy into that idea, as well as Agassiz.
There are definitely some good examples, but unfortunately it's not across the board. We still have a lot of work to do.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
We've had examples here today talking about the importance of habitat in freshwater systems as well as in the ocean, obviously. We've heard about impacts, all sorts of impacts on fisheries.
Mr. Christensen, to summarize, we've heard comments about wording and how important wording is or may not be in terms of getting it right and representing what we're trying to protect with the Fisheries Act. You've provided a number of recommendations to the committee, so thank you very much.
I would also just ask all our witnesses to provide their recommendations to this committee in writing so we have those.
In your opinion, how important would you say it is that the department, the ministry, get the wording right in the Fisheries Act so that it best represents what it is we're trying to do with protecting our fishery?
Legal counsel, Watershed Watch Salmon Society
I think it's very important to explicitly reference in the Fisheries Act that fisheries habitat is protected. There have been some opinions expressed that habitat is implicitly protected under the provisions right now. I would say that if this is the case, then it would serve the purpose of clarity, in letting people who are regulated know what is expected, to actually explicitly reference fish habitat as being part of the necessary components of protecting the fishery.
