Fisheries Committee on May 5th, 2021

[Jason Hwang]

Was that for me, Mr. Arnold?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Yes, please.

[Jason Hwang]

Thank you.

I spent about 25 years working with DFO before I joined the PSF two years ago. My portfolio was within the side of DFO that manages hatcheries and habitat.

I believe strongly that hatcheries are an important and appropriate tool, but they're not a magic silver bullet. You don't run out and build a hatchery every time you have a salmon problem. As Mr. Hill noted, there are concerns and risks and there can be unintended consequences that come from good intentions behind hatcheries.

I believe they are an important part of the picture, but we also need to understand that salmon from B.C. and from our hatcheries go to the North Pacific. There's more salmon out there right now than there has ever been. About 40% of them are enhanced, mostly pink and chum from Russia, Alaska and Japan.

We need to think about that. We need to show leadership in Canada, use hatcheries the right way, have good plans that are conservation-driven and sustainable, and show leadership by starting to have conversations with the rest of the international community around this shared resource in the North Pacific.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

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

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's good to have some of you back, especially Mr. Donnelly. It's good to see you again.

Mr. Hwang, I'd like to let you finish the answer you were giving to Mr. Arnold. What is the right way to use hatcheries? Are we still in the realm of opinion, or do we have science and evidence to specifically say “Do this instead of that”?

Tell us.

[Jason Hwang]

I believe we have a very strong body of science that can guide us well. Much of it is in play now, but there's more to do.

PSF is currently undertaking a hatchery effectiveness study, as funded by the B.C. salmon restoration and innovation fund. We will hopefully have some findings on this matter within the coming year.

In general, Mr. Hardie, I would say that there is a perception, I think broadly, among the general public that hatcheries are always good; that if you have a salmon problem, a hatchery is a really good way to fix that problem. The reality is that hatcheries essentially protect and make life for salmon better in one small aspect of their life history: when they're in the gravel and up to the point that they're baby salmon and they leave. When you put them out there, however, one big problem we have in British Columbia is that these salmon come back as mixed stocks.

Just as an example, if you have two streams that both make 10 fish and then you put 100 extra fish in one stream and no extra fish in the other and you then go fishing, you're going to catch a lot of your hatchery fish, but you're also going to catch some of those wild fish, and you could inadvertently be reducing the well-being of those wild fish, because they swim alongside the hatchery fish and it's difficult to affect that.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Hwang, I'll have to jump in here because I do have further questions.

Mr. Haskell, I believe that we heard from you particularly in the context of the Big Bar slide and the remedies there. We did hear some very interesting testimony from some of the indigenous first nations groups further up the Fraser River watershed, again about hatcheries. There seemed to be, at that time, a consensus among your community that small community-run hatcheries were maybe a good way to go forward. Am I remembering this correctly?

[Darren Haskell]

Yes, that's the direction we headed. The numbers that I shared earlier show that we're reaching the point of extinction on two of these cycles, with fewer than 100 returning sockeye on two of the runs—oh, man. As Jason Hwang was saying, the point is not to create fish so that we can go fishing; it's basically just to conserve these runs and keep them from going extinct. Conservation-based hatcheries and small-scale hatcheries—just to keep the run alive, basically—are what we're trying to do right now. We're just pedalling in the water right now, trying to keep these fish alive. That's where we're at.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I think that in the fullness of time, what we're going to need is a hatchery strategy going forward, particularly when we're looking at this. I hope that some of the players here today are placed in such a way that they can get together, collaborate and give us some good advice in that regard. That would be very good.

Mr. Donnelly, are we in the lucky place of having, all of a sudden, major convergence between the B.C. government and the federal government with regard to bringing resources to bear to help out our wild Pacific salmon?

[Fin Donnelly]

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Hardie. It's great to see you as well, and it's great to be back here.

If I could just add on to the previous discussion and build into your question, I would encourage the committee to look south of our border at the State of Washington and the work that it's done over the last 20 years, which has included hatcheries. Hear the results of the governor's salmon office and what it feels has been the effect and some of the problems related to simply putting a lot of funding into hatcheries. We're certainly looking at it. The provincial government is looking at that. I would encourage this committee and the federal government to do that.

In terms of your question, Mr. Hardie, yes, what I would say is that currently the stars are aligned. Based on the unfortunate situation of some salmon stocks being so low and some salmon populations and runs being in such critical states, there is a real willingness, I believe, certainly from the Premier of British Columbia and the Province of British Columbia, with, I believe, the federal government and indigenous governments in British Columbia, to work together to develop a wild salmon strategy or a series of recovery strategies. Also there's a willingness from fishers, the industry, labour, workers, environmental organizations and conservation organizations. They are really focused on salmon.

You've heard from the organizations here—the Pacific Salmon Foundation, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, the Watershed Watch Salmon Society—and many others that are very concerned. There is, as was noted, a lot of expertise around the table here. Mr. Haskell represents nations within the Fraser watershed in his work. I would encourage the federal government to work with all of the indigenous governments and all of these partners, along with us at the provincial government, to move forward at this time if we are really going to save salmon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Donnelly. Thank you, Mr. Hardie. Six minutes don't be long going.

We'll now go to Madam Gill for six minutes or less, please.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to all the witnesses who are here today to talk about the budget that has just been tabled.

First, I would like to ask all the witnesses whether the government consulted them ahead of the budget about the amounts that should be spent and how those amounts would be allocated.

My question is for any of the witnesses who would like to answer.

[Fin Donnelly]

Madame Gill, perhaps I could start, as a representative of the provincial government.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Yes, of course.

[Fin Donnelly]

Thank you.

I would say not directly for the specific amounts, but we have been in consultation, and our staff have been talking with DFO in the past number of months about how we might work together. The B.C. salmon restoration and innovation fund is a collaborative effort by the federal and provincial governments. FACTAP is another program whereby we work together. There are a number of programs in which we have been working together and collaborating. We have certainly switched information—

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

So not necessarily for the budget that was tabled. Okay.

Mr. Haskell, were you consulted on the budget?

[Darren Haskell]

We were not consulted directly on how much funding should go for each of these issues. They are addressing some of the areas that we've sent countless letters of concerns to the department about, specifically around funding hatcheries and funding habitat work with B.C. SRIF, as well as addressing the open-net pens. Many of the nations in our group are concerned about that.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Haskell, I'm going to have to interrupt you, but I'll come back to you later.

Mr. Hwang, answer quickly yes or no:

Were you consulted on requests for the budget, both in terms of the breakdown of the amounts and the content?

[Jason Hwang]

Thank you, Madame Gill.

I'll refer to my opening testimony: no, we were not. We're hopeful, but we don't know any detail at this point.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Hill, the floor is yours.

I'm asking you the same question, and I'm really talking about the government, not the committee.

[Aaron Hill]

It's the same thing. We were not directly consulted about the specifics of the budget, but we put forward our asks about what we would like to see in the budget. We feel that they were reflected in the breakdown of what's in there. It's the implementation that really matters, and that's what we're focusing on now.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you.

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair? I've lost track of the seconds.

I'm going back to the witnesses.

I'm a little surprised that we have come to the point when decisions are made to allocate specific amounts over five years without knowing exactly how we will spend the money. Based on your testimony, we conducted a study on what is important to see in the budget. You have been talking about it for almost a year.

I have heard the word “bold” several times. Mr. Donnelly and several others have used it. So could you tell me what's bold about it?

Do you think the budget is bold, given the breakdown, which I think is a little fuzzy?

You talk about implementation, Mr. Hill.

I'm addressing all the witnesses. Do you think it's a bold budget that seems to reflect the needs of the community? I'm talking about both the amount and the specific content in a few lines in the budget.

[Fin Donnelly]

Mr. Chair, perhaps I'll start. I appreciate the question.

I think that B.C. is eager to work with the federal government in developing new strategies to protect and revitalize B.C.'s wild salmon populations, including furthering our partnership on the B.C. salmon restoration and innovation fund. As has been stated here, this is a good start. More needs to be injected—

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Donnelly, my question was: was it bold? Are we really making a big move to help Pacific salmon?

The word “bold” was really key to my question. Is the budget bold, or is it a fairly vague response to a request, like a yes or no, but with no specifics?

[Fin Donnelly]

It's a great question. I always want to see more.

It's certainly one of the biggest investments that we've seen from a federal government in the last decade. This is certainly a good step in the right direction, and if it isn't bold, it's pretty darn close.