Fisheries Committee on May 16th, 2017

[Gerry Kristianson]

Mr. Sopuck, you made the point about public access to the resource, which I absolutely agree with. It's a principle of the recreational fishery that this is a common-property resource to which all Canadians have the right of access.

In fact, I talked about halibut. One of the examples that bothers us the most is that the government's policy of providing quota shares on halibut on the west coast has impinged on the public access. We're limited to 15% because it is assumed that the commercial sector owns the remainder of the fish. Now, in British Columbia, the number of vessels fishing for halibut has fallen from about 430 down to about 130. Most of the quota is not fished by the people who hold the quota. The people who are suffering are the ones remaining in the market who have to lease the fish they want access to from what we call “Maui condo quota holders”.

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

If I may, I'll just stop you there, because I want to get back to MPAs—even though those points are very important. Regarding MPAs then, given how gentle the recreational fishery is on the resource, there really should be no MPA developed off the west coast where recreational fishing is prohibited. Is that a fair comment?

[Owen Bird]

Yes, but with the exception of the RCAs, as we've described, which don't fit within the parameters of an MPA and where there definitely needs to be a reduction in access, or at least a need to follow through with that experiment.

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

Okay. It seems reasonable to me.

[Owen Bird]

Access should be allowed, and there should be sport fishing.

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

Having said that, you're not necessarily opposed to the notion of fish sanctuaries, strategically located. For example, the national park that I live beside is a sanctuary for big game. Consequently, there's enough big game that come outside the park, and local communities have great hunting because of that.

Could the same concept be applied to certain areas in B.C.?

[Owen Bird]

I think that's a challenge, frankly. One of the comments I made was that we need to be very careful about that concept, particularly with non-migratory fish, because you end up impacting the resources available to whatever fishery there may be in that area. They wouldn't be fishing inside that area, for example, but they'd still be fishing to similar limits or quotas they had previously, therefore very badly affecting—

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

So the notion of fish sanctuaries is an idea that you would have difficulty with? That's fair ball.

[Owen Bird]

In a tidal environment, I think it's challenging.

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

That's very helpful testimony.

[Gerry Kristianson]

Respectfully though, I think it depends on the species of fish you're talking about. For rockfish, we fully accept the principle that you create an area where the fish that can live to be 100 years old have a decent chance to do that. On the other hand, for other types of fish.... My point is that's why the consultation process is important. You can trust us to protect our sector's interests in the consultation process if we believe it's being conducted in a transparent and honest way.

We will do that, and then we'll deal with these details of which ones should be protected and how they should be protected. We've done that in the past.

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

Right. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Donnelly, for seven minutes, please.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here and contributing to this study.

I want to pick up on the same line of questioning that Mr. Sopuck started.

Mr. Bird, I will start with you. If it could be stated that the purpose of protection is to assist the recovery of a fishery, first of all, would you agree with that statement, that this could be a purpose of protection?

[Owen Bird]

Again, when you use rockfish, as an example, that absolutely could be an outcome there. It's something to be considered. What shouldn't be forgotten—and it just needs to be considered—is what happens in the immediate area where this happens to be. If there are no measures taken to consider the impacts on those stocks, you could end up with an unfortunate situation in which you'd have a preserved area or sanctuary, or whatever you'd like to call it, and then an area that's really in bad shape.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

So the rockfish stay in one area; they grow to a certain size; and if there is little protection, they could be fished right out.

[Owen Bird]

That's right.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

But then, where it gets a little murkier is for the non-resident fish that travel to other parts of the ocean. That's where you feel that could be an issue and that's where there's a little more controversy. Is that...?

[Owen Bird]

Where you have migratory species, whether it is salmon that migrate thousands of miles, or ling cod, which have seasonal migrations, that's where it gets trickier.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Gerry, do you want to comment?

[Gerry Kristianson]

Yes. Another example is one that I've encountered in my role on the chinook salmon recovery process in British Columbia. It's very clear that an important part of the natural mortality that's taking place with chinook salmon coming down the Fraser River, the so-called stream type that spend a couple of years in fresh water and then migrates to sea, is what happens in the estuary of the Fraser. So there's increasing attention being paid to the need to ensure that the estuary of the Fraser is protected as a place where those fish spend quite a bit of time acclimating to the ocean climate, ocean conditions, and so forth. There is a need to protect those areas. That doesn't mean you stop people from going there. Protection can be applied in all sorts of other ways.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Right: so it's management techniques, etc.

[Gerry Kristianson]

Yes.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Bird, if I could go back, you said something to the effect that enforcing existing environmental laws could accomplish conservation goals today. I think you were talking about just enforcing the law that we have currently.

Could you talk a little bit about that and what you meant by it?

[Owen Bird]

I suppose what I meant was that rather than taking an approach where you develop a preservationist regime and eliminate access or any kind of harvest from an area, simply observe what the management regime is for the species based on good science and follow the laws and the regulations accordingly. I think we'd come out of that, particularly from a recreational fishing perspective, in good shape. With rockfish conservation areas, again, maybe take the time to look at those again and consider all of those that access and perhaps impact those rockfish conservation areas and try to address that.