Evidence of meeting #12 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 43rd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was work.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to ask Mr. Tones a question for clarification.
Mr. Tones, when you spoke earlier of salmon, you were asked whether it usually worked well, and you said you were not experts. That surprised me, so I would like to know what the exact context was and understand what you wanted to say.
Senior Vice-President and Western Canada District Manager, Peter Kiewit Sons ULC
Our contract scope to date has all been about construction means and methods, about how to remove rock from the river and install this Whooshh system. The Whooshh system is what we were referring to. We've brought in an expert who's proprietary to that system in order to make sure it's operated properly.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
I'm going to ask Mr. Witzky a question. I'm going to try to keep it to 20 seconds to give him more time to answer.
He cited that last year was half of the lowest return in the recorded history of the Fraser River sockeye. I will also ask a similar question to Mr. Haskell about the need for restoration, enhancement dollars, and habitat protection.
Can you talk about how much is flowing right now, and what is actually needed, especially in light of the very few stocks that are going to make it through the slide? How critical is it that we get started on that work immediately?
Operations Manager, Fraser River Aboriginal Fisheries Secretariat
If you're talking about how much funding is needed, it's almost a bottomless bucket right now, or we're looking at extinction. It's never been this low. We've never had such a run on record. I can't put a specific dollar amount on it, but what's worth more, money or salmon?
Darren, do you have anything to add?
President, Fraser Salmon Management Council
As I mentioned, it's going to take millions. Basically, that's it. The number of projects proposed around the province adds up quickly. Hard labour is what it's going to take out there.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Johns.
I also want to thank our witnesses who appeared today. Thank you for sharing your expertise and your knowledge on the issue that's taking place at Big Bar. We're delighted that you were able to join us.
We're going to take a minute now for our witnesses to sign off as we go into a very short bit of committee business.
Now, as we know, the committee agreed in June that we would meet twice in July and twice in August. We know that in August the schedule is Tuesday the 11th and Thursday the 13th. As a committee, we have to decide now which studies will be done in these two meetings.
I don't know if anyone would like to make a suggestion to the committee on what the committee should do for these two meetings in August. I will just add that for the Pacific salmon study, the motion indicated no fewer than six meetings. Once we have Thursday's meeting done, we will have had four of those six meetings.
I would like to receive some direction so that the analysts and clerk can start planning for witnesses going forward, and not leave it to the last minute.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I wouldn't count the Big Bar sessions as part of the Pacific salmon study, Mr. Chair. We set aside a specific number of meetings to handle Big Bar, and then it was my thought that we would segue into the Pacific salmon study, because it's far bigger in scope than the Big Bar issue.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
I believe the original motion did say that the Big Bar was part of the salmon issue as well, unless the committee is going to change its timelines going forward. We did indicate, when discussing it at the time, that the Big Bar issue was part of the whole salmon issue on the west coast.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Certainly what we heard on the Big Bar could help inform or could be added to the Pacific salmon study, but based on a rough calculation, we would have two more meetings to deal only with the rest of the salmon issue. I don't think that's quite enough.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Okay, but going back, we said it would be no fewer than six, so it can be more than that. That's the decision of the committee. The committee didn't limit the number of meetings it would hold on Pacific salmon; it just said it would be no fewer than six. All I'm saying is that if, for example, we dedicated the next two meetings here, we would have reached six. That's not saying we have to cut it off at that point.
Go ahead, Mr. Johns.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Thank you.
It was my understanding that we were doing two sessions on Big Bar and were going to come back with recommendations to the department, and then that we were doing six separately on Pacific salmon. That was my understanding. It was that these studies were going to be separate and that we needed to hurry and get back to getting Big Bar out of the way and getting something back in terms of suggestions to the department to get moving on Big Bar.
We just heard from Mr. Tones about the need to get started on fish ladders now if we're thinking about next year. I don't think we can wait until we finish the salmon study. I actually saw them as very different. That was my understanding.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Okay. Again I will say that the committee didn't handcuff itself with six meetings. It said we would have no fewer than six meetings. We can certainly add meetings for the Pacific salmon study. That's no problem.
My intent here today is to find out what we want to do for the next two meetings, which will be held in August, on August 11 and August 13. Do we continue on with Pacific salmon or do we go to something else? It will be the will of the committee.
Go ahead, Mr. Arnold.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would support continuing with the Pacific salmon study for the next two meetings in August, and between now and then we can possibly have some discussions or email exchange to guide where we go from there.
Liberal
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Okay, so we have some witnesses who are currently available for the next scheduled meetings.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Therefore, if members are going to require more meetings—and I hear opinion from Mr. Hardie and Mr. Johns—we probably should consider additional witnesses.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you.
Am I hearing consensus that we continue on with at least the next two meetings on Pacific salmon? That way, if people have witnesses whose names they want to submit, they can get them in to the clerk and we can start lining up those witnesses for those two meetings.