Fisheries Committee on May 5th, 2021

[Aaron Hill]

I could take a go at it, if that's okay.

I agree that it was...“bold” might be the right word, but you have to take it in the context of the brutal cuts to salmon management functions that we've seen over the last 20 years and the extreme crisis that we're in. While it was very welcome, it's really only what we need to just get our heads above water, and only if we don't mess it up.

It's absolutely essential that it be invested properly, with restoring critical habitats, filling those critical gaps in stock assessment and catch monitoring, making our fisheries more sustainable, getting the fish farms out, being extremely cautious with how we use hatcheries, and addressing the chronic management problems and dysfunction at DFO with independent oversight.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Hill, if I follow what you're saying, does it mean that we had actually fallen behind and we have managed to catch up?

So I would take out the word “bold”. Actually, the budget does no more than try to replace everything that was previously taken away. That's what it looks like right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I'm sorry, Madame Gill, but you've gone over your six minutes.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We'll have to get that perhaps in the next round of questioning.

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

Go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do appreciate the questions from my colleague Madame Gill around the lack of consultation. The devil, I guess, we'll find in the details. We've been pushing very hard for the record amounts of money that will be necessary to bring wild salmon back to abundance. We were looking for a fivefold increase in the B.C. salmon restoration fund.

Mr. Hwang, you talked about having a wild salmon recovery plan. The system is not currently set up to bring wild salmon back from the state they're in. Can you speak a bit about what you'd like to see in the Pacific salmon secretariat and a restoration centre of expertise and how you think that should be developed and unfold, with, I imagine, a nation-to-nation-to-nation governance model with stakeholders? Can you speak about that?

[Jason Hwang]

Sure, Mr. Johns. Thank you for the question.

I'll do my best to be brief. The idea of the secretariat is positive and enticing, but it will depend on the details.

I think it will help within DFO if they can reorganize around the idea of supporting salmon recovery and sustainability. Right now, the department is still organized around the old days, which means organized around going fishing for abundances of wild salmon, and circumstances have changed. There needs to be a change whereby the department's management objective and structure shift. I think the secretariat can support that.

It should also include collaboration and co-operation with B.C. Essentially DFO manages salmon and habitat and B.C. manages land and water. You can't manage those things independently. They're the same thing, and the jurisdictions that have that authority would ideally co-operate.

As I said in my opening statement, first nations and indigenous rights are critical. They are closest to the land. They're the ones in the homes where these salmon go back. Those things need to be integrated. Some ability to have independent participation that is able to report directly to senior levels and to elected officials would be ideal, because there can be tensions within any organization or structure, and the ability for an entity to speak freely based solely on the best interest of wild salmon sustainability would be ideal.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Donnelly, it's great to see you here. Obviously I wish we had a B.C. fisheries minister—certainly we have a great Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries in B.C.—but it's really good to see you here in your new role.

Can you speak about the same question, around the Pacific salmon secretariat and how you see that unfolding? What do you think would be the best way to move forward in terms of tackling the situation we're in, given Mr. Hwang's comments about the system right now not being ready and not being developed to address the situation we're in? Could you also maybe comment on the importance of collaboration at those management tables with, for example, West Coast Aquatic in my riding, and on how they need to be resourced and involved in this process as well?

[Fin Donnelly]

Thank you, Mr. Johns. It's nice to see you as well, my friend. Thank you for the question.

To build on what has been said, it is important to note that we're in a dire situation, and, as Mr. Hardie pointed out with his question, there is a uniqueness at this moment and a willingness for us to come together. As Madame Gill has pointed out, there is a budget amount. There still needs to be a state of co-operation, with the federal government working together with B.C. and indigenous nations, and there is a willingness to do that.

The salmon secretariat must go beyond DFO. It must be working together with the province and with the nations within British Columbia, and there must be a willingness, as you say, Mr. Johns, to reach out to others that play a vital role, whether in restoration, in restoring watersheds, or in other elements of how we're going to address wild salmon recovery.

Again, if we look south of the border, we have a model there. In 1998, the State of Washington put rebuilding plans into legislation. They've now had 23 years of working towards rebuilding their salmon populations. They still have issues with, as Mr. Hill and Mr. Zeman mentioned in their opening remarks, damage to this habitat through practices that continue today. That is a challenge. I think the salmon secretariat can play a role in bringing the co-ordinating governments together to address the issues that are continuing to affect salmon and salmon habitat, looking forward with regard to how we revitalize and work together to recover salmon populations in those critical watersheds and those systems that are under the largest threat.

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

Thank you. I think I have about 30 seconds left, so I'm going to give those to you, Mr. Haskell, to comment on that as well.

[Darren Haskell]

Well, collaboration is a key word in there, meaningful collaboration, getting all the parties involved, because we're all trying to get to the same goal here of preserving wild salmon of the Pacific. It's right in the budget.

We've had ways that have worked in the past, and other ways that haven't. I like the idea that Mr. Hwang had of having that independent scientific approach and having that input from that side of things.

As of right now, the stakeholders that are involved in the management of sockeye take science advice, but the science branch does not have a direct say in the final decisions that are made.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Johns.

We'll now go to our second round of questioning. We'll start off, for five minutes or less, with Mr. Calkins.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to start by asking Fin.... Can I call you Fin, and you can call me Blaine, like we did for years in the committee? Is that okay?

[Fin Donnelly]

That sounds great.

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

Fin, my questions are for you. Congratulations, by the way, on your new role with the provincial government.

As you know, last December Minister Jordan released her Discovery Islands decision. To my knowledge, there was no plan for workers or the communities therein, in British Columbia, who really do depend on those salmon farmers for jobs and paycheques. They're fairly hard hit.

My first question for you is this: Were you, or was the provincial minister or the provincial government, ever consulted with by Minister Jordan prior to the release of her Discovery Islands decision?

[Fin Donnelly]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Calkins, and it's great to see you. Thanks for the note. It's great to be back in my new role.

You do ask a very pointed question. I agree there needs to be support when decisions are made. The Discovery Islands decision definitely could impact workers, and we've identified that support needs to be there if workers in aquaculture are impacted by that decision.

Two issues are happening. One is the Discovery Islands decision, which is affecting 19 farms in British Columbia. There's also the transition process, which is happening concurrently.

The federal government has been in consultation with us on a number of items. It has been working closely with us. On one of my first calls, my federal counterpart talked to me about being involved with the transition process. We worked together on that part.

I believe that series of consultations has now finished. There was a preconsultation and then a consultation process that just wrapped up, and a report is being submitted. I believe the recommendations that come out of that consultation will drive the transition process. There is funding in the budget for that.

In terms of the Discovery Islands decision, the province is still waiting to see the outcome. As you are aware, there were court challenges. One of the proponents was successful in their court case, with the injunction. We're waiting to see what will happen with regard to that, and the next steps. My understanding is that it will continue and will move through. We're anxiously awaiting the decision of the minister, as she now will have to respond to that case.

In terms of collaboration, that is certainly what we heard. The Discovery Islands decision was very different from a process that the provincial government used a year or two earlier, which is more commonly known as the Broughton Archipelago process. That was seen as much more of a collaboration that involved more than just government to government. It involved government to government to government and industry and others directly affected by the decision.

Is there a need for increased collaboration and working together? Absolutely. That, I believe, will continue and needs to happen in this next transition process. We'll have to wait to see what the federal minister is going to do with regard to the court injunction and in looking at those licences.

Where the provincial government comes in is we will be looking at renewing tenures. That means negotiation with the nations that are impacted in those territories where those tenures occur. Many of those tenures are going to be renewed in June 2022, which coincides with the timeline of the 18 months of the decision on the Discovery Islands.

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

Okay, thank you. That was a long answer. I'm not sure I have any time left at all, but I want to flesh this out a little more with you, Fin, if I can.

It sounds to me, if I can paraphrase just a little, that there was no transition plan. The transition plan for the Discovery Islands was basically stood up after the announcement. Is that correct?

[Fin Donnelly]

You're best to talk to DFO and the federal government, but our understanding is that we learned of that, as did many of the industries and local governments and others affected, when that decision came on quickly. Our concern was that workers who would be impacted by that decision would not be protected. My understanding is that there is no package and no transition for those workers, should they be impacted.

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

Therefore, when it's in the budget that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Calkins, I'm sorry. Your time has actually gone a bit over. Those long answers will fill the clock pretty easily, but they were informative at that.

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

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

My question is for Mr. Haskell.

First of all, I'm coming to you from Eskasoni Mi'kmaq community. We heard the testimony in this study back in the summer about the importance of salmon for indigenous peoples in British Columbia, both for cultural reasons and for subsistence. In Mi'kmaq country, we have some of the same issues with climate change affecting salmon stocks.

There's a fascinating documentary right now on APTN called Gespe'gewa'gi that looks at the fisheries management in Listuguj, Quebec, where they're taking a lead role as an indigenous community in facilitating the hatcheries. They captured it on video. I thought what they were doing was amazing.

I heard you talk about a bit of reluctance about about the hatcheries. I wonder what you're hearing from indigenous communities on the west coast about hatcheries and their productivity. As well, if it's not hatcheries, what does indigenous knowledge teach us about best practices to restore the salmon stocks?

[Darren Haskell]

It's not hatcheries. It was actually just elders talking about restocking the streams themselves, taking from one stream that had an abundance of fish and physically taking them as they're spawning and bringing them up to streams that they know are in trouble. We've heard those stories for years up here from the elders.

From the west coast, we've heard stories that they've gone to this point where they're talking about extensions for their runs. In some cases they worked out really well, and in other cases they haven't.

As was mentioned before, hatcheries can be really tricky in terms of water quality. Everything has to go right for hatcheries to work out properly. I've heard success stories from the west coast and I've heard some really not very good stories when it hasn't worked out and a lot of money was spent and they didn't get results.

Going about this properly is the important thing if we are indeed going to go down the road of hatcheries. As was mentioned before, there are a lot of things that need to go right for it to happen properly. We know the risks of hatcheries and we don't want to do any more damage than has already been done to the salmon here.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Now that there's a commitment of $647 million over five years—and I'd imagine a big part of that will be collaboration, as I've heard from the provincial government—what are you hearing from the chiefs about the kind of collaboration they would like to see in making sure that indigenous knowledge and indigenous culture is part of the solution moving forward?

[Darren Haskell]

They don't want to go with the status quo, I guess they would say, because they've been around for years and they've seen what some of the past governments have called collaboration—you know, meeting, consulting and checking your box to say that you've met with these people. They really want to see results from all their input into collaboration.

In the past, they haven't seen the results from the input they're given. They've always been told that all the chiefs in B.C. or all the chiefs who are involved in this conversation need to have consensus and have to agree on the same answer; otherwise, it's just taken as a recommendation. There's always a plan in place already before they even talk to the chiefs.

Seeing the recommendations that are made by chiefs in the collaborations and seeing the results of those recommendations and how they're implemented will be important. How things are implemented is going to be the main thing here.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Chair, do I have much time left? Okay, I have one minute.

Mr. Hwang, you said that the State of Washington is doing a lot of things right. If you could make recommendations based on what Washington is doing right to what we could do right in British Columbia, could you quickly go over in a minute what those recommendations would be that you would like on the record?