Fisheries Committee on May 4th, 2017

[Rebecca Reid]

In fact, I think the response that we've provided is better than what had been suggested.

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

All right.

The Cohen recommendations did something rather curious, I thought. They said that the implementation of the wild salmon policy had to wait until the federal government specifically allocated funds for it. As I say, it's curious that we would have to wait for something like that. Knowing what you know today, what kind of money we are talking about to properly implement the wild salmon policy?

[Rebecca Reid]

First of all, I want to make the point that we didn't wait for implementation. We have been implementing.

Was the question with regard to the cost for Cohen or for wild salmon policy?

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

I mean for the wild salmon policy.

[Rebecca Reid]

That's a hard question to answer specifically. There's no end to the amount of work you could do in habitat monitoring or in stock assessment information. We could have more fishery officers on the ground.

Concerning our response to the wild salmon policy, the consultation process we're going through right now really is about engaging with our partners, indigenous groups, to come up with a plan that says: this is what DFO has before us, and this is our program capability; how can we work with others to fully implement it? I don't think the department can do it by itself.

Once we have that plan set out, we'll be able to do additional costing to get a better sense of where, if we were to receive more investments, would be the best place to put it. That's going to take some time.

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

Based on some of the comments we've heard in other studies, it's actually a very positive sign to see that DFO is going to reach out to include more of the community—more, if you like, of the outside expertise and on-the-ground energy—to deal with this.

Among the so-called out-of-date recommendations was recommendation 41, which was all about habitat policy. That was deemed out of date because of the changes that the previous government made in 2012.

Did you in fact down tools on the habitat issues? Is recommendation 41 back on the table of recommendations supported in principle?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

First of all, I would say concerning the habitat recommendation and the activities recommended, no, we didn't ever down tools. As Rebecca mentioned, the sequencing was not one whereby we just sat and waited for the recommendations to come in, then figured out what to do, and then started. We were working quite extensively on habitat all the way through.

As I said in our opening remarks, as part of what we'll be doing as the government itself and as the department contemplates its response to what the government's direction is on Fisheries Act changes, we may come back, not specifically on the content of recommendation 41 per se, but on the changes to the Fisheries Act overall.

For sure, though, we have continued quite aggressively with our work to protect, conserve, and restore habitat. As I mentioned earlier in response to one of the other questions, under the oceans protection plan our new coastal habitat restoration fund is going to target, in operational as opposed to legislative terms, these sorts of issues very specifically.

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

With the investment in new science, have a number of the new scientists been specifically allocated to working on Cohen recommendation material?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

They've been specifically allocated to working on salmon biology and research; you would find no one in the department.... We have, for example, approximately five people—new people, I'm talking about—in addition to the 10 or 12, or actually more than that, whom we've already had working on salmon biology. There is no one whose job title will say, “implement recommendation X”, and so on, as you can well appreciate. But the new salmon biologists, the research community who are coming on, are focusing on many of the issues addressed in the report.

It's always important to keep in mind that the recommendations are just that, but one of the great services the Cohen commission did for the science community was to assemble a very deep literature record. The report itself is in multiple volumes. There's an awful lot that we learned from it, which again is influencing—not in a direct, linear, one-to-one way, but quite substantially—the research we're doing and the people we're bringing on.

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

What areas of the wild salmon policy are up for review and refreshment, if you will, in the work you're doing now, Ms. Reid?

[Rebecca Reid]

I think it's important to explain that, the way the wild salmon policy is created, you have your overall policy with goals and objectives and strategies, and then you have actions and the implementation piece.

The substance of the policy is sound; there is no need to change it. But as time passes, we need to make sure that our actions are up to date and current, given new information and new inputs to the department and the enhanced role of our partners and indigenous groups. It's really questions around the implementation of the strategies that we're interested in.

For example, there are strategies around collecting information about the stock status of the various sockeye populations. There's information about the habitat status. There's an aspect around how we manage in an integrated way. Each of these strategies has actions associated with it, all of which require engagement by first nations and stakeholders. That's the aspect we're looking at—renewing and refreshing now and into the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you.

Mr. Arnold is next, for five minutes, please.

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

I want to thank you from the department for being here today to talk to us about this.

Mr. Swerdfager, I want to recognize the habitat work that has begun, in part with our previous government, with the recreational fishery conservation partnerships program. I hope to see that program continue.

As members of Parliament we are ultimately responsible, but we have to look at our departments and hold them accountable. One thing that has really been of concern to me since I've come here.... I want to go back to the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development and her report referring to the integrated fisheries management plans. Those plans were first committed to in 1995. There was a recommitment in 2009. Now the latest response from the department concerning the reason those plans aren't implemented is that your department is now going to develop a plan to develop those plans. We're getting into decades later and we still haven't implemented plans.

That leads to the wild salmon policy. That policy was developed years ago, yet now the response is that we will continue to implement the policy incrementally and that work is under way to develop an updated wild salmon policy implementation plan. You're making a plan to implement a plan.

The buck stops somewhere. Where do we stop this, so that we get actual plans in place and active?

[Rebecca Reid]

I can speak specifically to salmon. Perhaps Sylvie will speak more generally to your question about ISMPs.

There is a salmon integrated fisheries management plan. In fact there are a number of them that have been completed every year for a long time.

That is a very thorough process whereby we work with our partners to develop and then implement the plan. The way the wild salmon policy fits into that is that it provides the policy framework by which we manage fisheries in a sustainable way. This isn't a plan for a plan; it is actually delivering on the work of managing these fisheries.

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

If you read through the responses, it's a plan for a plan. I think the public is growing a little anxious about when these plans are actually going to be implemented.

I'll move on to the next question and I'll go back to Mr. Sopuck's question.

Does the department have actual numbers on the harvest of commercial, on the food, social, and ceremonial and now, as we hear, cultural fishery by first nations, and on the public fishery? Do you actually have hard numbers on all of those categories?

[Rebecca Reid]

Yes, we do. I'm sorry I wasn't able to run them off the top of my head, but I can certainly provide those numbers to you, absolutely.

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

Thank you.

Sockeye salmon are somewhat unique in their four-year cycle. They rely on one year of actual circulation in inland lakes as part of their life cycle and I have become aware of the actual requirements in those lakes of a four-year cycle so that they can replenish themselves with the nutrients. They can't sustain a high level year after year. That's part of the reason for the four-year dominant run, subdominant runs, and so on.

In the trends, has there been a higher impact in the subdominant run years? I'm wondering whether there's any correlation or whether you're working on correlations among these impacts. We hear, about predator swamping, that with the huge runs the predators don't have as much impact.

Have there been greater impacts in the subdominant years than in the dominant years?

[Trevor Swerdfager]

Mr. Chairman, I will apologize for what seems like an evasive answer. Please don't take it that way.

For sure, we are looking into these issues; I can say that quite categorically. I'd like to be able to say to you: “We've identified the following impacts in the subdominant years” or “We have identified predator swamping as the cause.” I can't give you that kind of answer.

What we're finding is that first of all, there is far more variability than we expected from system to system. I know the conversation today is focused mostly on the Fraser, but if you started walking up the coast and looked at some of the comparative work in the Skeena and the Fraser, truthfully, sir, part of our answer is that we're scratching our heads. We're finding results that are quite confounding. Part of what we're trying to do is tease out what the various factors at play are here, and we're trying to compare across systems a little bit.

What we are finding is that there is not an enormous difference between what we've described as broad-based impacts in the dominant years and those in the subdominant ones. You can't say that in a particular year this stochastic or one-time event occurred and you can see a response. The inquiry is quite deep and broad. It is not yielding, at this point, the kind of definitive “here's what we're seeing” answer. It's a matter of saying that the work is ongoing, we don't have definitive answers, but we are actively pursuing it.

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

Is there any indication of heavier impact on the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'm sorry, I'll have to cut you off there. I've been rather generous, but....

Mr. Swerdfager, there is no need to apologize. I don't think there's any institution on Parliament Hill that is a stranger to evasion.

We're now going to Ms. Goldsmith-Jones.

I believe you're sharing your time with Mr. Hardie, is that correct?

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I don't know whether....

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

Go ahead. If you feel like sharing....

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

I'll tell you what, Ms. Goldsmith-Jones. I'll give you five minutes, and in Mr. Hardie's words, if you feel like sharing, feel free.

[Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I think one of the most exciting new directions is a really robust partnership with first nations in British Columbia. It's very important.

Could you be more specific about some of the work you're doing in partnership with first nations?

[Rebecca Reid]

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has a very long history of working collaboratively with first nations and funding activities. We have annual agreements whereby first nations and the department work together on collecting data—for example, stock assessment information and catch monitoring information. Those inputs are very important to our knowing the situation of salmon more generally out in the rivers and streams to support our ability to assess the numbers returned and the strength of the stocks.

Those are a couple of examples of the way we work with first nations. More than that, first nations are involved at every level of the management of this very important stock. They're involved at the international table, they're involved at the advisory tables, and they're involved in the planning processes. At every level, we work very effectively with these nations.