Fisheries Committee on May 16th, 2017

[Gerry Kristianson]

You go ahead.

[Owen Bird]

The tidal waters fishery in British Columbia is valued at approximately $630 million annually. Recreational fishing in B.C. fresh and salt water is approximately $936 million annually. That's based on numbers from the 2010 national recreational fisheries survey and a provincial study in 2012. We would anticipate that number would probably increase in the 2015 data that we're anxiously awaiting from the national recreational fisheries survey.

Across Canada, the values are more in the order of $8.3 billion. This is a number that has recently been quoted by the Minister of Fisheries. So sport fishing is an incredibly important part of the social and economic fabric of the country. Of note—and it's not to devalue it or place any more importance on sport fishing over the commercial fishery—is that the commercial fishery is valued somewhere in the neighbourhood of $5.8 billion or $6 billion, just to give you a sense of the values there.

[Gerry Kristianson]

I might add that in British Columbia, the number that Owen has cited accounts for just over 50% of the total GDP value of all fisheries. Based on 15% of halibut and 10% to 12% of salmon, the recreational fishery actually has a GDP value now that is greater than all other fisheries, including aquaculture, combined.

Those other fisheries are enormously important—not to denigrate their importance—but those are the relative numbers.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

As well, Mr. Kristianson, you mentioned that the consultation process has been really good with the various departments and with your group. Somewhere along the way it fell off the rails, whereby you said groups thought that everything was fine and everybody had accepted a consensus, but then some sort of letter-writing campaign changed the outcome afterwards. Could you expand on that and exactly how it went?

[Gerry Kristianson]

As I said, I credit the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, on the Pacific coast where I have more experience, with attempting diligently to give its various stakeholders an interest, for them to be able to put forward their views.

The difficulty that it has confronted is twofold. First, we live in a new world where different means of communication are now available. Secondly, though, government obviously has an obligation to listen to the public as opposed to listening to the consultative processes that it creates in order to give particular interests input. To me, it's the issue of how you balance that.

Particularly in the case of the Hecate Strait glass sponge reef, the issue was how wide and how high, and how the protection area should be designed. Everyone in the groundfish integrated advisory process wanted that protection to take place.

The argument by the commercial fishing sector—and I'm happy to support them in this circumstance—was that they came forward with a lot of evidence to show that there were ways in which commercial harvesting could continue to take place adjacent to the sponge reefs without damaging the reefs, the issue being the bottom being stirred up, allowing the bottom sediment to drift onto the reef and damage these quite precious structures. As I said, the problem was that the accepted consensus in the Canada Gazette , part I, then disappeared because the government felt it necessary to take into account this additional information.

I understand that government has to take into account all of the information it receives. I'm hoping for some kind of a balance. If you take away from us.... I'm a volunteer and I get paid nothing for my activity, but I devote a lot of time to these processes, as do others, and it's a bit hurtful when all the work you've put into it disappears because somebody else appears to be better at generating Internet-based letters than you were.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Perhaps the two of you can answer this: if there were any one or two recommendations from you at the committee today that we could put forward in this study, what would you want to see included?

[Gerry Kristianson]

Let me have a first cut at it.

I would like the committee to consider carefully the definitions that are going to be used to define protected areas, and I'll cite one example.

Through a very detailed process, we established a large number of rockfish conservation areas on the west coast. These are areas in which all recreational fishing has been banned, and all commercial fishing, with some exceptions of things that don't touch the bottom and affect these areas where rockfish congregate. If you added those areas to the total, I think you would be well over the stated percentage for the west coast already.

The difficulty is that you can't add them because they don't meet the strict definition that has been applied to what a protected area is. The reason is that first nations still have access to those areas. You can't stop first nations from fishing in those areas, because they are defined as areas of abundance. If they were areas of no abundance, then conservation measures could be applied.

I'm not suggesting that any interference with first nations' rights take place here. What is needed is a negotiation that ensures that those areas can be defined as protected areas and therefore become part of the total, as opposed to trying to find other areas to add in order to meet a percentage requirement.

[Owen Bird]

I wrote down “thoughtful definition of the area” just as Gerry began to speak, so I would just echo what Gerry said.

I guess another recommendation would be to be very careful about restricted access in developing these areas, whatever they may be, and that the idea of a preservationist approach be very carefully tread upon.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you.

I'm good, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. McDonald.

Mr. Sopuck.

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

I have a comment on what Mr. Kristianson just said. Just because an area has abundance, it doesn't mean aboriginal take is allowed. In most national parks the big game is very abundant, but there is no aboriginal take in most southern parks. I think this can be dealt with.

Gerry, you talked about 300,000 participants in tidal-water fishing. What's the impact of recreational fishing on the fish resource in the tidal waters of B.C.? I'm talking about the percentage of the harvest and what the take is.

[Gerry Kristianson]

They—

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

Also, how does it relate to the commercial and aboriginal harvest?

[Gerry Kristianson]

I guess the simplest one to define is halibut, which is an allocated species in British Columbia. Canada gets its share from the International Pacific Halibut Commission and it gets divided up between recreational users. We are entitled to 15% of Canada's annual take. That's about a million pounds. We have 300,000 tidal-water licences, but probably 100,000 of these licence-holders pursue halibut. The test the SFAB faces is a set of rules that will ration a million pounds of fish amongst 100,000 people. That's not an easy task.

In the case of salmon, we take a larger share of Chinook salmon than the commercial fishers do, but that's under the allocation policy, which gives priority access to Chinook and coho to the recreational fishery, whereas the priority on sockeye, pink, and chum goes according to the commercial sector and is part of a negotiated allocation arrangement between the sectors. I have to say that in British Columbia there are very few arguments between the recreational and commercial sectors about access to fish. We have a good allocation arrangement.

However, the recreational impact on fish is very small compared with that of the commercial fisheries, which are designed to catch substantial numbers in short periods of time. That's to their credit—it's what they're designed to do.

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

Of course, there's also the principle of a public resource being allocated to the highest and best use. That's a principle I strongly subscribe to, so I have some difficulty with the argument you just made, Gerry. It is a public resource, and it's the public's right to get as much from that resource as possible.

Is catch-and-release practised in the tidal waters? Is it becoming more common?

[Owen Bird]

Yes, catch-and-release is something that does take place.

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

Okay.

[Owen Bird]

I would say it occurs for all species for various reasons.

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

So actually, those fish that are released are not part of the take and they're not even killed, but the value they bring to the province is enormous for zero harvest.

What is the rate of hooking mortality for fish that are released?

[Owen Bird]

It depends quite significantly on the species.

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

Give me a range—for salmon, let's say.

[Owen Bird]

For salmon it's quite low. It's somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10%.

[Gerry Kristianson]

There are a variety of studies that look at that. For purposes of the annual salmon plan, the department assumes that 15% of all salmon that have been hooked and released will probably not survive. Now, what we are learning is that it depends on what you do to them. If you take a fish out of the water and hold up it up trying to take a picture of it—

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

I understand that. I just wanted the numbers.

What we're talking about is a high-value activity, which hundreds of thousands of people do, that is essentially very gentle on the resource. Is that a fair comment?

[Owen Bird]

That's reasonably fair, yes. When you look at halibut or something, it's probably 1% or 2% mortality.