Evidence of meeting #22 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was wild.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I'm not sure who to ask this question, so if anybody has the answer, just put your hand up or launch in.
There has been some discussion about a mark selective fishery, because we are told that there are times when the ocean is teeming with hatchery fish, especially from Washington state, and some people see this as an opportunity for the recreational industry to get those lodges up again and get people catching and keeping some fish, etc.
What do you think of a mark selective fishery?
6:45 p.m.
Instructor, Fish, Wildlife and Recreation Program, British Columbia Institute of Technology, As an Individual
I guess I'm the hard-core angler here. I spend more time chasing chinooks than probably anybody in this whole meeting.
Yes, again, there are potential negative impacts from a genetic perspective. What I would say, though, is that if you're going to have a fishery, every single chinook and every single coho should be marked, and there should be very clear discrimination.
The problem with hatcheries, again, is that they're sort of the crack cocaine of the fisheries world. You get addicted to them really easily, and you can end up with problems associated with weak stock harvests, which Carl Walters and all the UBC guys went through 30 or 40 years ago. It's just kind of a known thing.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Hardie.
We'll now go to Madame Gill for two and a half minutes or less, please.
6:50 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have one final question for all the witnesses.
In your respective fields, have you seen any best practices abroad that could influence us as to measures to be taken here in Canada?
6:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Living Oceans Society
If I may begin, at least, I looked at practices in several jurisdictions just this past year when we were sitting as the enhanced sustainability in aquaculture initiative. I can't say that there is a jurisdiction I would point to and say, “This is a model. This is being done well.” I think that is because this industry got out far ahead of any government's regulation of it. It was big and impactful before anyone understood what the impacts would be, so every jurisdiction has had to play catch-up with it in terms of trying to regulate it.
Some of the catch-up measures are working better than others. Norway stands out as a great example there, in that it has substantially curbed the growth of the industry in the water except if the industry can adhere to environmental standards, which means controlling the lice and controlling the spread of disease. These tenures in Norway are handled completely differently from the way we handle them here.
I'm not sure we can take a direct lesson from them, but certainly one of the things that stand out is that they charge an awful lot more for the right to use the ocean. This is something that we could employ as a technique to incentivize salmon farmers to stop using the ocean as a sewer and move into closed containment. This is something else that Norway is incentivizing: the development of new technologies, including land-based, closed containment.
Someone asked a question earlier, indicating that these developments were prohibitive, and I must say that they are not prohibitive. There are over 70 projects that have been announced worldwide in land-based, closed containment. It's expected that they will produce over one million tonnes of salmon within the coming decade.
There are several of them that are under way, under construction right now, and there are at least three that I am aware of that are in production right now, that are selling their fish already. These are not prohibitive. They are attracting billions of dollars of investment worldwide, and they could be attracted here as well because we have all the advantages that we require to develop a land-based salmon-farming industry.
6:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Madame Gill.
We will now finish off with Mr. Johns for two and a half minutes or less, please.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Di Cicco, Pacific herring was just raised. Do you believe that the current DFO management regime is applying the precautionary principle in terms of managing the herring fishery, especially in the Salish Sea? We all know the importance of that fishery and the interconnectedness it has, whether it be for cod, salmon, whales or other mammals and marine life.
Can you speak about how confident you are that they are applying the precautionary principle?
6:50 p.m.
Fish Health Researcher, Pacific Salmon Foundation
Allowing the fishery as it is right now, or as it just happened, I don't think was a very precautionary move. As I said, we have a very limited stock, and every fish counts. That applies to the place, and it applies to the predators. I wouldn't say that I agree that they are applying the precautionary approach right now.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Do you think the 20% measurement they use for the biomass harvest rate is sustainable? What rate would you recommend?
6:50 p.m.
Fish Health Researcher, Pacific Salmon Foundation
That's a much more complex question. It also varies year by year. You cannot use a measure that is fought over every year. Every year we have different productivity, so we cannot use that same variable every year.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Can you speak about the impact an overharvest could have on future generations of the species?
6:50 p.m.
Fish Health Researcher, Pacific Salmon Foundation
If you have an overharvest—and this applies to every species—you definitely impact the survival of the species. Some years might be better and some years might be worse, but every time you go worse, you really have a huge impact on those populations.
6:50 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Ms. Wristen, Mr. Calkins asked a question about the impact of salmon farms, especially thinking about Clayoquot Sound, where we have a high concentration of farms and low returns of wild salmon in the Nuu-chah-nulth territory—really overall, but specifically near those river mouths of the existing farms.
How important is it to remove salmon farms, especially in areas where you have low returns and they're having an impact?
6:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Living Oceans Society
It's critical. If you look at Clayoquot Sound, there is no habitat reason why those returns shouldn't be brilliant. The habitat is in terrific shape for almost all of the rivers in Clayoquot Sound.
Why the impacts? Monitoring for sea lice in Clayoquot Sound, for example, has shown that the impacts to the wild salmon have been huge in the last three years. Removing the farms would remove a threat that is responsible for perhaps as much of 94% of mortality in some of those tiny out-migrating runs. They're down to tens of fish in some of the rivers. There's nothing left to play with or to gamble with in terms of leaving those farms in place.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Johns.
That clews up our session for today.
I want to say a big thank you, of course, to our witnesses for their insightful testimony here today. We'll say thank you to our committee members.
It's nice to see Mr. Arnold has his hand up. I don't know if that's intentional or not.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just wondered if I could do a 10-second question here. I would like to ask Ms. Wristen if she could repeat—
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Actually Mr. Arnold if I do that for you.... The time has expired and I have gone over time. With the permission of the committee, I will allow it if it's just for the purpose of clarification of an answer.
6:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
It is for clarification. I would just ask if she could repeat, for the record, the date that Dr. Miller-Saunders provided Minister Jordan with the data related to the mouth-rot bacteria.
6:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Living Oceans Society
On December 15, Dr. Miller-Saunders sent it to her immediate supervisor. As I said, I don't know that it ever got to the minister.
6:55 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
I just wanted to ask, Mr. Chair, if we can ensure that we have some time allotted in the next meeting for committee business. I have a motion I'd like to table at that meeting.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
So far, we will be doing committee business to some extent at the next meeting. I guess it will be version two of the moderate livelihood study. If it's relevant here, or if we get time for it, we'll certainly try.
Madame Gill.
6:55 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Like Mr. Johns, I would like to introduce some motions to the committee, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
6:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
I understand. I will do my best to carve off a little time for committee business.
Again, thank you to everyone and committee members. It's nice to see some familiar faces back. Mr. Zimmer and Ms. May, it's always a pleasure.
Thank you to our clerks and to our analysts and, of course, to the very important translators who make it possible for us to hear this in both official languages. We will see you at the next committee meeting.
The meeting is adjourned.