Fisheries Committee on June 15th, 2017

[Philippe Morel]

What was your question?

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

My question is why the extra restrictions on striped bass when they are known to be significant predators of Atlantic salmon smolts. This flies in the face of the recommendation we made in our report that you allow a significant increase in the harvest of striped bass. You closed the season for three weeks. I gather, from the documentation that I have received, that the communities are very upset about this. This flies in the face of the recommendation that our committee very carefully considered. Biologically, we made the right recommendation.

Why did you not follow that recommendation?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

I've read some of the science on the striped bass and the predation of Atlantic salmon smolts. While there is definitely some predation, I believe the science said that it wasn't necessarily significant. I remember reading the specific numbers in my report, but perhaps Philippe can expand, now that you've clarified the question.

[Philippe Morel]

Sorry, I don't have the exact—

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

I strongly disagree with that. I read the papers myself. Where do you get that information when there are 300,000 striped bass in the estuary of the Miramichi at the same time the smolts are undergoing their downstream migration? Let's say the percentage of striped bass that take the smolts may be relatively small, populations of the salmon are very low, so even if 20% of the 300,000 striped bass take smolts, that is a lot of smolts and a lot of production that is not happening. You refused to increase the.... In our view, you could have instituted a major increase in the harvest of striped bass because people prefer Atlantic salmon to striped bass. I think it's time for the department to realize that people are their clients and not the fish.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Sopuck.

Mr. Finnigan, you have five minutes, please.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the panel for appearing today.

I had another question, but I'll comment on the striped bass. Being from Miramichi everything happens four hours before the west coast, so I'm going to give you an update on that. The striped bass tournament was a great success. Over 2,000 people came. It's great for the economy.

Having said that, I was at a rally there with probably a couple of hundred people, and I addressed them on the striped bass issue. The department has expanded the fisheries and the catch you're able to take this year. Is it enough? I don't know. A lot of people will debate that it's not enough. However, their concern, and that was part of my other question, is more the consulting process that takes place. There are means of consulting online and they also meet with different groups. But the people on the river who have been there for a long time feel they are not always part of the process. Again, I can defend science any day, but there are questions on how they came up with that number. I think that's one area where I believe we could do a little better.

I went fishing myself and I caught my limit of striped bass and I released some. It's a great thing, but again, we also want to protect the salmon on the river.

If I may move to another subject, it is small craft harbours. For the last 10 years, some harbours in my area have been really neglected, even in the management aspect. I have one right now in Pointe-Sapin where the fall lobster fishery is threatened because the harbour hasn't been dredged or maintained over the years. We're now facing a shortage of time to be able to do that, and some 40 lobster fishermen may.... I don't know where they would dock their boat. It's a long way to the next one. Right now, there's a stench in the community because of the algae that's built up.

We were talking about the resource allocation. Are we allocating more resources to be on top of that? It's very important. This is a very lucrative fishery for that small community, and we're facing a time crunch on that one particularly, so maybe I could ask you to comment on that.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

I'm going to actually handle that in two parts. I found the sheet that I remember I had read previously on the striped bass and I just want to get that on the record, and then I'll get into the small craft harbours, if that's all right.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Sure.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

There are going to be management decisions coming up on the striped bass, but the report that I was specifically referencing was a report conducted from 2013 to 2015. It was a three-year striped bass diet study that sampled a number of striped bass at the Miramichi estuary during May and June. Salmon smolts were found as prey, but they were located in only 1.5% of the striped bass sampled during the study. There were 48 smolts found in 28 stomachs of 1,844 striped bass sampled.

That being said, I agree that we can always have better science and we can always do more, which is part of what these investments—$3 billion in 2016-17—are all about. It's making sure that we can better understand what is going on in our oceans so that we can make better decisions.

In terms of small craft harbours, decisions on prioritization of where the money goes are based on the status. Safety is always one big component, but then of course there's the productivity of the individual harbours. As we said during a previous question, there never seems to be enough money for small craft harbours, so this becomes a serious prioritization issue. But our government is dedicated to investing in infrastructure and in our coastal communities, and the small craft harbours are one way we do that.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Thank you.

My other question is on the question I get asked most in my riding about fisheries—recreational or not—which is the enforcement issue that has been cut way back over the last decade. I hear we're going to invest more.

Is it more in officers on the ground or in technology? How are we going to address that, because I hear there is a lot of poaching going on?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

I hear your concern and I share your concern. You've been very vocal about this and I appreciate that.

The resources we have are going to allow us to do more, both on the human resource side and also on the technology side.

Perhaps Philippe would like to comment further.

[Philippe Morel]

Sure. With the money we will receive from OPP, the oceans protection plan, and from the comprehensive review, the amount is ramping up, so it is about $16 million a year to enhance particularly the entanglement program for whales on the east coast and the west coast, and also to complete the implementation of the intelligence team in C and P, conservation and protection, which supports the on-the-ground fisheries officers.

It is two teams of fisheries officers. One is concentrated on intelligence gathering and enables the on-the-ground fisheries officers to be more strategic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Scott Simms]

Thank you, Mr. Morel. I have to cut it off there. I'm sorry.

Mr. Arnold, you have five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr, Chair.

I want to start by saying that I was disappointed when we found out the minister couldn't make it here, with all due respect to those who are here and to the parliamentary secretary for being here. Originally I was very disappointed that the minister wasn't going to be here. We have tried continually and have had very little success in bringing the minister to speak to this committee.

I'm even more disappointed now when I see the news story just now that the minister is out announcing that they're going to reduce the time frame around protecting these marine protected areas and basically establish them and then begin the consultation.

We've heard time and time again during our study of the MPA process from witnesses who continually said that the most effective and most co-operative manner of establishing these MPAs was when the discussion with the stakeholders began first, to identify the area that should be mapped out as an area of interest, and then going forward with laying out the areas.

To see that they're going to be hammering down these areas first, and then beginning the discussions is.... I guess I'm lost for words having seen the news story, but now we know why the minister isn't here today.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary or staff can advise us why this direction has been taken, that government knows best, DFO knows best, and then they'll talk to the stakeholders.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

To start, again, the minister regrets not being here. The last time I had the opportunity to address the committee in this capacity, of course, the minister was here, and that was in February, a number of months ago.

I know the minister and the entire staff of the department worked diligently to keep all members of this committee up to date. In fact, we've been able to facilitate separate briefings, which aren't a standard thing that happens in most departments, for individual members on individual issues. So we try at every turn to provide this committee and the members of this committee with the information you need to be able to do your important work at this committee.

With regard to the MPA announcement, yes, there is an intention to try to put into place a system where we can put in some level of protection, without having to wait the full average of seven years. Under the current system we basically have no protection until there is full protection. By having some sort of process where we can at least freeze the current footprint, while we investigate and consult, and then move on to a Governor in Council process—

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

What types of restrictions would you be putting on? Would these be fisheries closures? Would they be oil and gas exploration closures? What types of closures are you going to put in place without consulting those impacted first?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

The individual measures would be very specific to the individual MPA.

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

How are those identified without talking to the stakeholders?

[Philippe Morel]

I can jump in.

On the process to establish an MPA, first, we base it on the ecological and biological sensitive area, which does have a lot of stakeholder input to identify the conservation and biological objectives that could be achieved through that. After that, we move to an area of interest where what we recommend would still have some consultation before the minister declares by order.... It's an 18- to 24-month process for the minister to consult before he freezes the footprint. Then you have consultations that can last five years before he establishes an MPA. We are not shortening or trying to avoid the input from stakeholders, quite the contrary. What we are trying to achieve is that since we—

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

It looks like you are doing measures that are going to enable you to claim you've protected these 5% and 10% targets without actually having the full MPA process finished. Would that be correct?

[Philippe Morel]

It's an interim measure to make sure that the protection of what has been identified as an area of interest is actually done, and that the conservation objectives are not changed.

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

So you can say you've reached the 5% and 10% targets without actually having them completed as MPAs. Thank you.

On May 31, Minister LeBlanc was in Victoria and said that the stream to sea program is “a small piece of the salmonid enhancement program”. The minister went on to say the stream program is not part of DFO's regulatory mandate. What has changed since May 31, so that now this program is part of the mandate?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

I think the minister was referring to the Treasury Board process that we had discussed previously. By the way, if he referred to it as “small”, I would guess that would be in reference to the entirety of the salmon enhancement program, which is $27 million—

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

But the entire program was announced to be cut.