Fisheries Committee on Dec. 9th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Atleo, your hand is up.

[Clifford Atleo Sr.]

Yes. Thank you.

I think racism is a real problem within the department. It needs to be addressed. That's precisely why Mr. Adolph mentioned his personal story. We have all witnessed racist attitudes within the government. The confidence will not return without addressing, acting on, eliminating and maybe providing zero tolerance for racism. It would go a long way if we actually added that and worked at it—not just the government by itself, but us helping. They need to understand who we are, where we've come from and what we're able to do.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Chief McNeil, go ahead.

[Chief Tyrone McNeil]

Three things jump to mind in response to that.

First, implement Sparrow. What I mean by this is that in the Lower Fraser, we typically go after what's called “early timed” chinook. The way DFO manages the fishery is that they allow the marine recreational sector to get their full feed on it, so by the time the early timed chinook reach the Fraser, there are not enough for us to access. They're not implementing Sparrow.

Second, take the open-net fish farms mandate away from DFO. They're in too much conflict. They can't do fish farms and protect wild salmon at the same time. Their default is to support farms over wild salmon.

Third, the Fisheries Act right now suggests an ecosystems-based approach to the management of the fisheries. I really encourage that. The current management regime by DFO is simply access and nothing else, although they do have a broader mandate. Put it on the table and do it, particularly with us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I don't know, Ms. Morten, if you have a comment.

[Zo Ann Morten]

Years ago, DFO used to have consultative processes for the community at large, and anyone could attend. I can't even think of the last time they had that consultative process.

However, the last time they did, the facilitators wrote down the answers without listening to the people who were speaking. When we were speaking, they would stand with their hands by their sides and not write things down. Then, when we weren't speaking, words magically appeared on the screen.

The consultative process died a long time ago, and it would be nice to renew it in a new fashion with new people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

Thank you, Madame Gill. Your time is up.

We'll now go to Mr. Johns for six minutes or less, please.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for your important work around fighting for wild Pacific salmon.

I also want to thank, obviously, Wickaninnish, who is the head of the Council of the Huu-ay-aht for being here, because I am in Nuchatlaht territory today.

I'll start with you, Wickaninnish. The B.C. salmon restoration fund right now is an agreement between the province and the federal government. It's $142 million over five years to invest in restoration.

Right now we're seeing many projects denied in our region as well. We've seen 3% of the traditional return in the Tranquil and in rivers in your territory.

Can you speak about how important it is that government urgently increase that amount? Many people are saying we need five times that. That $142 million is over five years, and we need that ever year. Can you speak about the importance of that and about the opportunity for reconciliation in investing in that?

[Clifford Atleo Sr.]

When the modern-day treaty-making process began in the early nineties, we sent our staff from the tribal council to all the areas on the west coast. Politically, they were the northern, central and southern regions of Nuu-chah-nulth.

We estimated in the early nineties that it is was going to require at least $90 million to $100 million for habitat restoration. Then a few years later, toward the end of the nineties, the government announced this restoration fund for five years and $75 million, which is really a pittance. Subsequent to that are the additional funds you talk about.

I think the province has been let off the hook until now. They contribute just a wee bit, despite the fact that they have benefited the most from the destruction of habitat. It has prevented the ability of our people and our nations to get serious about restoration.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

We're seeing a 3% return in the Tranquil and the lowest recorded return in the Fraser two years in a row. Do you believe the minister is acting with a sense of urgency? She hasn't even said it's a salmon emergency. Can you speak to that? Do you feel she's taking this seriously enough?

[Clifford Atleo Sr.]

There's been very little urgency on the part of government with regard to what we are experiencing here.

I recall the minister being out here with the Stó:lo when they were going to formally sign a Fraser management council agreement. We were fortunate to be invited to that, because we've always supported that initiative.

The slide had occurred a week before. The leaders of the Stó:lo got together and put a resolution to the government that said they had to act now. It was only then that activity started to happen. Prior to that, there was next to nothing.

There really has been a huge separation or gap or lack of connection with reality from out here, so the importance of listening and hearing our leadership becomes rather critical.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chamberlin, you probably heard the testimony on Monday. The minister's mandate letter said that she would work with B.C. and indigenous communities “to create a responsible plan to transition from open net-pen salmon farming” in coastal B.C. waters “by 2025”.

We heard from the industry on Monday that they didn't believe the transition was to closed containment or to land-based containment. Can you tell me what you thought "transition” meant in that mandate letter?

[Robert Chamberlin]

I can tell you that I've worked with and identified 102 first nations in British Columbia that support the transition to land-based closed containment. It's because people have now become more in tune with just what the impacts represent.

The fact is that this is something that needs to happen. When we heard of the announcement and we read the words, it was to “transition”, not to “develop a plan” to transition. Across B.C., 102 first nations support this government in that action, and by doing so, it would approach a very broad-stroke reconciliation effort across the province. It could go a long way to removing what is understood as systemic racism based upon 21 years of ignoring the Marshall decision as well as all these years without meaningfully implementing the Sparrow decision.

How else can that be viewed from a first nations perspective, other than as systemic racism?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Can you speak about the importance of Cohen recommendation number 3, about removing the mandate of DFO to be both the protector of wild Pacific salmon and also the agent for the industry? Can you also speak about conditions of licence when it comes to sea lice and their approach to industry?

[Robert Chamberlin]

Absolutely. Thank you for that.

When I think about the conflict of interest—and you look at the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, CSAS,—this is such a confirmation that the conflict and bias is built into every aspect of DFO and the fish farm industry. This is something that must change.

When you consider the condition of licence, if you have three average sea lice producing larvae on a fish farm, it triggers the need, by regulation, to treat the farm. Well, three sounds innocuous, doesn't it? When you consider there are a half a million or three-quarters of a million fish on each fish farm, you're getting into the millions of sea lice producing larvae, which of course means billions of larvae in the upper water column where the Pacific salmon are migrating through. It's a clear threat. It's a clear impact. With the condition of licence, there is no monitoring of how many sea lice are on the juvenile salmon. It's completely untethered from what it's intending to protect.

The biggest farce of all is the 42-day window that's given to industry if they're out of compliance. When you think about the reporting, the response and the 42-day window, you now have an industry, coast-wide, that's allowed to operate in defiance of regulation during that critical out-migration window.

It's absolutely useless and it is not looking after wild salmon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Johns. You've gone a bit over time, but I wanted to hear the answer.

We'll now go to Mr. Calkins for five minutes or less, please.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the testimony that I've heard today. I've not only been educated a lot; I've also been entertained at times during this meeting. I appreciate the good nature in which we're discussing a very serious issue.

I think everybody in the room right now wants the same thing. They want the protection, longevity and health of wild Pacific salmon. I don't think anybody here wants anything but that.

I'm going to ask along a bit of a different line of questioning. When it comes to abundance, Mr. Hardie and I would agree on this particular point—that the issue is abundance. Commercial fishermen tell us that DFO has mismanaged and that there's no more abundance. Sport fishing and recreational fishers would say that DFO has mismanaged and there is no abundance anymore. Of course, first nations would also—yourself included today—say that there are issues in regard to abundance. I don't think anybody is disputing any of that.

I do want to talk a little bit about what some of the potential options are going forward, rather than just looking at one or two options. I think there are couple of other opportunities that are available. One of them would be the potential use of hatcheries, not as a permanent solution, but as an interim solution to increase abundance and to restore stocks. Of course, there's going to be ongoing efforts for cleaning up our streams and making them more productive, but there's also the use of selective gear to ensure that wild salmon are given every opportunity.

Would any of you want to talk about what changes we can make, whether it's the harvest taken by first nations along the fresh water or along the coast, or whether it would be sport fishers or others? What sacrifices or ideas can we make in order to ensure that wild salmon are allowed to return to spawn? We can use different vehicles.

What we're doing right now is basically watching salmon disappear. We have to do something different. What things could we do differently, other than just closing or moving the fish farms? I don't think that, in and of itself, is going to solve the problem. What other things can we do?

Who would like to take a shot at that?

[Arthur Adolph]

I would.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Go ahead.

[Arthur Adolph]

Right off the bat, because of the amount of money that was spent on the Cohen commission, I think we should really take a look at what came out of that report and ensure that every recommendation that was identified is implemented.

First and foremost, I think the appropriate way to look at restoring the Fraser River wild salmon is to examine all the impacts. What are the impacts to the salmon? What are the impacts to the habitat? We then need to take a look at what is causing all this. Once we understand all this and we come up with a methodology for addressing all the impacts to the fish and to the habitat, hopefully, out of all our work and the Cohen commission recommendations, we'll see an abundance of salmon.

Right now, DFO is in denial and not really taking into consideration the full implementation of the recommendations of the Cohen commission.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Adolph.

Madam Morten, I think you wanted to say something.

[Zo Ann Morten]

I would agree that we should look at the Cohen commission again, and not just say, “Working on this,” but actually say how we're working on it.

I remember my first day on the fisheries renewal board of directors, coming in and Joy Thorkelson asking, “How come the only salmon that we talk about as being removed from the system are the adults?” Why are we not looking at when a cow steps on a red? Why are we not looking at water pollution? Why are we not looking at all the other ways that salmon die?

That's something I'd very much like to see. Where are salmon dying? At what stage in their life cycle? When they do come back as pieces, as they're called, we're finding a lot of the coho pre-spawn mortality is due to the water quality issues. They're dying without laying their eggs. It's fine and dandy to have a fish come back, but they are not providing the next generation for us, and I think we have to look at that full cycle and ask where our fish are disappearing in that cycle.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Chamberlin, would you comment?

[Robert Chamberlin]

I just want to jump on the comment about pre-spawn mortality. This is something that occurs.... One of the indicators is liver problems and other organs being taken over by piscine reovirus and becoming HSMI and the explosion of red blood cells. It's one of the contributors to pre-spawn mortality.

In terms of how we move forward, we need the government to implement the Cohen recommendations, not “act upon” them, because I think that includes the disregarding of important pieces. There are a number of first nation reports, including one from the First Nation Wild Salmon Alliance, the First Nation Leadership Council and the provincial government that articulates a path forward to rehabilitate salmon.

We've got the plans. We need an investment similar to what the State of Washington is doing in regard to the true value of healthy and abundant wild salmon stocks.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Is that it?