Evidence of meeting #13 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 need.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Thank you, Chair.
My first question is for Mr. Walters. I believe the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is still using an ecosystem-based management approach. Would you agree with that?
1:15 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
Right.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I know, it's tongue in cheek.
But does it make sense to you that...? This is where I think part of the problem comes from. With the marine mammal protection act, there is a large segment of that ecosystem that's basically put in a box and put on the shelf with a “Do not touch” sign on it.
I know you've spoken a little bit about this, but how is it possible to do ecosystem-based management when you take a huge chunk of the ecosystem out of the equation for management purposes?
1:15 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
Well, it isn't possible. That's a particular issue with Steller sea lions, which are listed as threatened, or something like that, under SARA, so that no harvesting of them is allowed at this time. However, there's good evidence that—for fish in general—they're one of the biggest problems, and one of the biggest causes of decline.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
The B.C. Sport Fishing Institute, the sport fishing advisory board and others have called for selective removal—not a broad-based cull but selective removal—in what they deem to be areas of known issues where this predation is affecting the population. Your scientific reports that I'm going through seem to substantiate that.
Do we need a broad-based reduction in the overall population to get back to historical levels that you talked about, or can it be done through ecosystem-based management, where we take a selective approach at the most problematic areas?
1:15 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
The idea of harvesting or removing problem seals at river mouths won't work at all. Seals kill adult salmon on returning, and that's highly visible. People have known about it. It's basically accounted for in the population dynamics analyses already.
The juvenile mortality that's causing the more severe problems with Chinook and coho salmon does not occur at the river mouth. It's not problem seals; it's the whole seal population through which the juvenile fish pass. The juvenile fish migration is a kind of gauntlet as they're working their way along the coast.
It's a diffuse problem, so the selective cull idea is what I call a lose-lose policy. It will cause huge public controversy and won't do any good.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
For no gain.
What is the number that you think it should be at, based on the historical evidence that you've unearthed and the predictions and projections that you've had, and based on the current status of salmon stocks?
What is the number? How many should there be?
1:15 p.m.
Professor Emeritus, Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, University of British Columbia, As an Individual
The number we've recommended is about 50% of the current population sizes of both harbour seals and Steller sea lions. That's well above what.... For most of the 20th century, those populations were reduced to about 10% of their original levels. This would be bringing them back down to about the levels we think were present over the last several thousand years.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Thank you very much.
Mr. Zeman, if I can chat with you, I believe it was you who talked about large numbers of first nations willing to move to selective fishing methods. The B.C. sport fishing advisory board, the SFAB, has recommended mark-selective fisheries as one of the tools that would be effective in restoring salmon populations, but also allowing for the continued prosperity of coastal communities that rely on salmon.
How many of these first nations are willing to move away from nets? Are we at the 50% point? Can you give us any indication? Was it you or was it Mr. Hwang who was talking about this?
1:20 p.m.
Director of Fish and Wildlife Restoration, BC Wildlife Federation
There were applications to the B.C. salmon restoration and innovation fund the first year, and that was to transition. It's not a number, but I think it offers first nations in particular an alternative. The discussions that we've had with first nations is that we, cumulatively, are all terribly concerned about the state of salmon. We all recognize that we have to change the way we fish in mixed-stock fisheries. That's really about the federal government and the province coming up with incentives and science to help improve fishing practices.
I haven't seen anyone who said they're opposed to pound traps at all, actually. Everyone recognizes we need to get there. The trouble is between here and there, and moving in that direction. Until this last round of SRIF funding, there was no appetite from the province or the federal government to move into selective fisheries.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Compared to Washington.... In the time I've spent on the coast, in mark-selective fisheries, I've caught lots of chinooks that have had the adipose fin clipped. These are hatchery fish that are coming out of the Columbia. They're mixed in with some of the local fish from the Fraser. Of course, we have closures now, very punitive closures, because the department has basically said before the committee that the only tool it can use to restore salmon stocks is to reduce angler pressure, which I don't agree with.
We're talking about fundamentally changing the way the department approaches this. Through hatchery enhancement, hatchery use for scientific purposes, habitat improvement and using something called mark-selective fisheries, where we've seen a rebound of coho stocks, would this be part of an effective tool, in your opinion, when it comes to allowing harvest for sport fishing and harvest for first nations that is not as destructive as throwing a net in the water? In your opinion, are some of the recommendations from the sport fishing advisory board going to be part of the solution?
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Mr. Calkins, you've gone way over your time.
I will ask the witnesses, if they want to answer that question, to please send a response in writing to the committee to include it in the testimony.
We will now go to Mr. Hardie, for five minutes or less, please.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Actually, with your indulgence, Mr. Chair, if Ms. May has a question to ask, I would be more than happy to throw some time her way, because she is on the ocean, as many of us are.
Ms. May, would you care to ask a question?
1:20 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Yes. Thank you very much, Ken. You're very kind.
Mr. Chair, how much time would I have at this point, in accepting Ken's generous offer?
July 23rd, 2020 / 1:20 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
That's wonderful. I'm setting my clock.
I'm going to start with a reminiscence, because in sitting here listening to all of this, I keep getting flashbacks to when I was working with a man whom Carl will remember for sure: Dr. Ransom Myers.
I was working with Ram when he was in the DFO, trying to stop the destruction of the Atlantic cod stocks. Scott will remember this, too. It was a DFO project to imagine that we had this vast spawning biomass and could keep increasing the fishing effort. After the collapse of the cod stocks and the various efforts following that with the DFO, I remember talking with a Newfoundland fisherman, who said that with DFO you go from a species being underutilized to it being extinct without a management plan in between. I'm afraid it feels much like déjà vu all over again.
I want to direct a question to you, Aaron Hill. You referenced taking off some of the flood control measures on the lower Fraser. This seems to go directly to what our colleague from Pacific Salmon Foundation, Mr. Hwang, was saying. Is it B.C. government decision-making to get those particular obstructions off the lower parts of the Fraser River?
1:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Watershed Watch Salmon Society
It's a mixed responsibility, and that's the problem. Federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictions are involved, and the decision about fish falls into a no man's land where everybody shirks the responsibility.
We need federal leadership in implementing the Fisheries Act with respect to decisions about what flood control structures we put in the lower Fraser. Over $1 billion of flood control upgrades need to happen on the lower Fraser to keep communities safe in the face of climate change. We have a huge opportunity, as we upgrade those flood control structures, to use new, modern, salmon-friendly technologies that will open up this vast area of habitat that's blocked off and, as we do that, restore those habitats by removing invasive species and other things. The federal government has put some money into this through the salmon restoration fund, but it's just a tiny drop in the bucket, compared with what's needed.
1:25 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
As I think all of the witnesses will agree, this feels overwhelming, because we know we have climate change coming at us. We haven't even mentioned ocean acidification. We also have the problem of various degrees of fishing effort, and we have predation.
This set of hearings is looking at the Big Bar slide, and of course as everyone here knows, that happened in a year with the lowest-ever historic returns. In prioritizing things, I think it's helpful for us as a committee to know what measures have the largest implication in terms of approaching all of these problems.
I'll put my question to Aaron Hill, and I'll go to Mr. Zeman as well. Is it actually about fixing the Department of Fisheries and Oceans itself, around accountability? Is that our number one task? I ask because it seems to me this might be one change from which many other changes will flow.
Mr. Hill.
1:25 p.m.
Executive Director, Watershed Watch Salmon Society
Absolutely. I think Mr. Zeman and others have spoken to that. There is a tremendous lack of accountability and transparency within the department and, as I mentioned, a disconnect between the priority in the wild salmon policy of putting conservation first and what we actually see in terms of decisions around fisheries management, habitat, salmon farms and other things.
1:25 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Could I go to Mr. Zeman? I think I have a bit of time left.
It's hard to find a place to focus when it's a complex ecosystem and the problems seem overwhelming. Mr. Zeman, do you think that focusing on the way the department functions would be a good focus?
1:25 p.m.
Director of Fish and Wildlife Restoration, BC Wildlife Federation
It's definitely one part. It has to be done, but you take a triaged approach and you pick out.... I wouldn't do just one thing at a time. I would do multiple things and really get at it. It's part of the solution, but there's going to be no silver bullet for this problem.
1:25 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
So more funding, focus on habitat and try to get to accountability in the department....
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Ms. May.
We'll now go to Madame Gill for two and a half minutes or less, please.
1:25 p.m.
Bloc
