Evidence of meeting #24 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 hatcheries.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Robert Hauknes  Fisher, As an Individual
Brian E. Riddell  Science Advisor, Pacific Salmon Foundation, As an Individual
Josh Temple  Executive Director, Coastal Restoration Society
Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Tina Miller

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

I guess it is pretty concerning. We just don't know. We'll wait until Monday, and see what happens then.

5:05 p.m.

Science Advisor, Pacific Salmon Foundation, As an Individual

Dr. Brian E. Riddell

It's certainly a concern to me.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

You've all alluded to the importance of moving quickly on restoring Pacific salmon. Captain Temple, do you believe the government has delivered on its promises to do so?

5:10 p.m.

Capt Josh Temple

I believe the government is doing a lot. I believe first nations, NGOs, the provinces, and various departments in the federal government are doing a lot. I believe that a lot of money has been spent. However, I'm a firm believer in the science, delivering the proof, and the proof in the pudding is that the Pacific salmon numbers throughout their range continue to decline.

The question is, are they doing enough? If we were doing the right amount, the trend would reverse. Everybody has a responsibility to do more, and not just the federal government.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

If the government were to continue on in this path we're presently on, where do you see the state of Pacific salmon in the future? This path is leading to somewhere. Isn't that right?

5:10 p.m.

Capt Josh Temple

Without some emergency action, there's only so much further the numbers can decline before we're talking about mass extinction. We're getting very close.

I've witnessed in my own nearby watersheds in Clayoquot Sound that some of them are not seeing any salmon returning at all. That is indicative of many of the small streams throughout the province. Certainly, some of the larger watersheds are also getting very close to that red line.

Without emergency measures, funding and action, as I said in my opening statement, we could see the extinction of salmon on a large scale in my lifetime.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

Wow.

Mr. Riddell, you mentioned in your previous remarks the importance of collaboration between federal and provincial governments in restoring the Pacific salmon stocks.

Do you believe there has been enough collaboration from the federal government?

5:10 p.m.

Science Advisor, Pacific Salmon Foundation, As an Individual

Dr. Brian E. Riddell

Do you mean enough collaboration just from the federal government? That seems to be a little at odds with the notion of collaboration.

There has not been enough effective collaboration with the Province of B.C. The Province of B.C. has responsibility for freshwater, the landscape, forest practices, mining, etc. We can't separate the two, so both governments have to work more hand-in-hand.

The opportunity for collaboration is huge. You have people everywhere concerned about salmon. It's not just Captain Temple on the west coast. The small communities there are greatly involved as well on the north coast. I started my entire career in Prince Rupert along with the complete dedication of first nations groups. There are many people who have the capability to collaborate and work on these projects.

However, we need a large-scale effort in order to avoid picking and choosing particular areas. We need a wide distribution of programs.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Mazier Conservative Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB

Have you seen a shift? Besides COVID and all of that, have you seen this federal government shift for better or worse? How is that collaboration with the province and, obviously, all levels of government? Have you seen the collaboration work differently in the last five years?

5:10 p.m.

Science Advisor, Pacific Salmon Foundation, As an Individual

Dr. Brian E. Riddell

We're talking about the B.C. SRIF, the B.C. salmon restoration and innovation fund. It was one-third or 40% provincial and the balance was federal. That's a collaboration and a major step forward. I hear rumours in the province that there will be a B.C. SRIFII. There will be a continuation of money there. That's another strong signal.

Is there greater collaboration on projects? There isn't unless we go out and dig for it. We still build a number of science programs. We're doing a lot of work in near shore development and so on. However, you have to go out and build these collaborations. There are big silos, as we used to talk about it.

In terms of the collaboration within the federal government alone, it's difficult to get Environment and Climate Change Canada, DFO and Natural Resources Canada to work together. It's not just groups outside the federal government; there's a lot of opportunity to improve inside.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald

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

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to split my time with Ms. May, because I know she always has a great question to ask.

I only have one question, and it's going to go to Dr. Riddell. However, I'm also going to give Captain Temple an opportunity to subsequently give us his feedback on this.

That's an interesting number you had, Dr. Riddell. The Pacific Salmon Foundation works with 345 different groups. I would imagine there are many others out there, between government agencies and non-government agencies.

Do you get the sense that anybody has oversight over the whole landscape to coordinate and maximize the efforts and the money going into all of these individual organizations, so that we're actually cumulatively getting the best value out of their efforts for the money we're putting in?

5:15 p.m.

Science Advisor, Pacific Salmon Foundation, As an Individual

Dr. Brian E. Riddell

To be honest, 345 is enough for us to work with. I don't have any doubt that you could increase that number. We actually have a fixed number for a reason. We manage money for them.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

I'm sorry, Dr. Riddell, but is there coordination?

Is there somebody looking and saying, “Look, we have these people doing this, these people doing that. Are there gaps in what's happening?”

Are we covering the landscape properly with the resources that we have right now before we think about throwing more in there?

5:15 p.m.

Science Advisor, Pacific Salmon Foundation, As an Individual

Dr. Brian E. Riddell

Okay. I'm very sorry. I missed that. That's a very important question.

To be perfectly honest on this, I have personally said “no” to that several times. There is not adequate planning under restoration. When we provide funds, we do not go out and solicit programs. We fund programs that are offered to us to support.

An offering from a wide variety of people does not necessarily build a coherent program. That's why I think we need to have.... The money is great. I have full faith that these people deliver on good value for money, but we can benefit them much more by building a plan that they can then work on together.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC

I appreciate that.

With that, I'll turn it over to Ms. May.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald

Go ahead, Ms. May.

5:15 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Thank you very much.

Chair, just flag me when I should stop.

I want to go to Dr. Riddell, but first thank all of the witnesses. I wish I had a bit more time, but I'm grateful for what I have.

Dr. Riddell, the figure you mentioned that really laid me flat was the three to four degree Celsius average increase over the long term in our water temperatures. That's related to, at this point, a one degree Celsius rise in global average temperature compared with what it was before the Industrial Revolution. We're on track right now to go to three to four degrees globally.

If the water temperature is already three to four degrees higher than our global average, do you know of any science that anyone has done that suggests salmon can survive even if we hold to the Paris target of 1.5 degrees, or as far below two degrees as possible? This is terrifying information.

5:15 p.m.

Science Advisor, Pacific Salmon Foundation, As an Individual

Dr. Brian E. Riddell

Well, I feared your question, Elizabeth, but I think it's a very astute one.

Let me be clear: the three to four degrees is the maximum range. When you see the maps of the ocean, there are varying colours of intensity, but if you have extremes to that degree, then the other water is pretty warm—certainly more in the range you're talking about.

You bring up a very important point. We have all of these projections. We have global models. We have very little predicting what we're likely to see long term in the ocean. The ocean is highly dynamic. Even the Pacific has multiple different currents, and the salmon all use them in different ways.

We actually are putting together a large scale program under the UN Decade of Ocean Science and Sustainable Development. Our project is exactly what you just said: We want to build a program that links climate change to ocean impacts fishery resources and back to B.C.'s communities, because the communities ultimately are paying the price.

We can do that with salmon. They provide an ideal opportunity to do this work, but that work in the open ocean over multiple years will not be cheap. I don't think we can do it if we have—

5:15 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

If we use a decade, Dr. Riddell, aren't we out of time, based on what we know from the IPCC 1.5 degrees special report? Without deep cuts.... I take my friend Gord Johns' point that this isn't something we can control, but I think it is. The faster we go off fossil fuels and restore sequestration, the faster the opportunity to hang on to a livable marine environment for our salmon.

5:15 p.m.

Science Advisor, Pacific Salmon Foundation, As an Individual

Dr. Brian E. Riddell

I don't think you'll lose salmon in a decade in any sense. We're going to lose some here and there, possibly, with the bad habitat. They are highly resilient. They are very flexible in their use. It's a huge area out there. You can't believe how big it is until you try to go out there.

The problem that I think that we are identifying here and one that we're simply not addressing is your question, “How much impact is climate change going to have on our oceans?” and then relate it back to our fishery resources. Those are the questions that I think we really have to struggle with now.

5:20 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

I'm sure I'm out of time. I wish I could ask Captain Temple a question. I just want to thank all of the witnesses for bringing their concerns to us.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald

There still might be a bit of time later on, Ms. May. Let's hope someone will give you a moment to ask another question.

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

5:20 p.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Riddell, I'll come back to you again.

Last September, DFO released the nine assessments of the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat that examine the various pathogens. They concluded that they pose no more than minimal risk to wild salmon.

Do you agree with those assessments? Why or why not?

5:20 p.m.

Science Advisor, Pacific Salmon Foundation, As an Individual

Dr. Brian E. Riddell

Unfortunately, we do not. I say “we” because the Pacific Salmon Foundation has written a response to that and provided it to the department about our concerns about the nine assessments. The one very obvious one that's not done is sea lice. Sea lice has not been reviewed in any way since 2012. We have almost a decade of more knowledge on that one.

Our concerns are both statistical and about how you define “minimal harm”. Your definition is surely going to differ from my definition and everybody else's. We have a fundamental problem on how we actually assess these things. We have documented our concerns about the PRV paper, about the Tenacibaculum paper and about the absence of sea lice.

The assessments don't even consider the cumulative effects of these things. They seldom act on their own. They don't consider the ecological effects. Something that comes from it is VHSV, which is a virus from herring to salmon and back to herring. That's a perfect example of our concerns about the farms amplifying bacteria and so on.