Fisheries Committee on May 5th, 2021

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

Thank you. I know I only have a few seconds left and I want to get this piece in.

Mr. Chair, before my time runs out, we had discussions at our meeting on Monday about the announcement on the spot prawn issue. The parliamentary secretary stated at that meeting that if the committee members felt on Wednesday that further action was needed, because they didn't feel that enough action had been taken in the previous 48 hours, then we could deal with it.

Mr. Chair, I would like to make sure that once we've finished with these witnesses, we have time to discuss this issue, as promised by the parliamentary secretary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold. Your time is up. It was up when you started your final statement, but as I said earlier, there will be some time carved out to deal with some discussions of the schedule. I will do that very shortly.

As time has expired for you, I will move to Mr. Hardie. You have five minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you again, Mr. Chair.

Enforcement seems to be an area where obviously much more effort is needed. In the various studies that we've done on fishing conditions in the west coast, the idea of indigenous guardians keeps coming up.

Mr. Haskell, is it fair or reasonable to engage indigenous communities in that kind of policing, that kind of monitoring?

[Darren Haskell]

Yes, I think it is. I think it's been shown to work in some of the coastal communities where they are out there checking people and protecting the stocks. Where there were some hiccups, I guess, was in the implementation of it all—where the authority lies and whether our guardians are allowed to serve citations, make charges or seize equipment. I think that was the biggest issue with trying to roll out a guardian program with a lot of the inland first nations. That came up with the fisheries officers, the DFO side of enforcement. It just became very political, I guess, after that, about where the jurisdiction and authority lie and what kind of role they would have. Would it be just kind of pointing and saying, “Can you please get out of here?” without having real authority? I think that was a big issue.

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

Can we say then that it's worth another look and a refreshed strategy?

[Darren Haskell]

Definitely.

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

Good.

Environmental assessments are a big deal, particularly when you get to the lower Fraser Valley with all of the residential, industrial and agricultural development that goes on there. I also wanted to ask specifically about that process and your level of comfort with it.

As a particular example, the Port of Vancouver does its own environmental assessments, and there have been a lot of concerns raised about the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 development. Is this an area where the federal government should look at mandate letters or letters patent and maybe make some changes about how these assessments are done? I don't know who wants to take that on.

[Fin Donnelly]

I'm happy to jump in, and I see Mr. Hill is also indicating that he is interested.

I think this absolutely is. It's one of the most complicated areas in British Columbia in terms of competing jurisdictions and complexity of issues, but it also offers a tremendous opportunity to look at how the port, the federal government, the provincial government, indigenous governments, municipalities and all the players, even universities—UBC is right there, and SFU—and others could come together to look at issues that were formerly addressed by what used to be there, which was the Fraser River estuary management program. They could look at bringing that back, ideally in better than a 2.0 form, a 3.0, with co-government. They could look at addressing the critical issues and look at all the restoration that's happening, including the fish passage that is being addressed in the estuary and the Fraser Valley, which I know Watershed Watch and other organizations are working diligently on in their municipalities.

This is absolutely an area where there is an opportunity to leave a legacy, not just for this year or the next political cycle but for the next hundred years, which is really what the port operates under. That's the context we should be looking at to address the Fraser estuary impacts, because those impacts also affect the food the southern resident killer whales rely on.

Mr. Hardie, you've touched on a really important point where I think there could be co-operation and real movement made.

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

Mr. Hill, do you have anything to add?

[Aaron Hill]

Yes, I am in complete agreement with Mr. Donnelly.

I want to add that the issue is really about addressing the cumulative impacts on salmon habitat, because they suffer death from a thousand cuts. I keep harping on the wild salmon policy, but strategy 2 of the wild salmon policy really is about understanding those cumulative impacts on specific salmon populations and specific habitat. Implementing that strategy and the action steps in it, in addition to the things Mr. Donnelly has laid out, will also take us a lot of the way we need to go.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie.

That concludes our rounds of questioning to our witnesses today.

I want to thank all the witnesses for their wealth of knowledge that they have shared with the committee today on this particular study. We will bid farewell to our witnesses as they sign off and we deal with a little issue that I want to bring up.

To each of you, stay safe and stay strong.

[Fin Donnelly]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your time. Thank you, committee. It was great to see everyone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I believe witnesses have signed out.

I want to bring up an issue with regard to our upcoming meetings and requests for any witnesses on the salmon study. We did invite the minister to appear again at the committee in relation to this study. The clerk has informed me that the minister would be available only after the constituency week in May, which leaves time very tight after that.

I have two proposals that I'd like to put forward, and the committee can decide which one of them they want to go with, or neither one. It is up to the committee.

Number one would be that we hear from the minister before we begin drafting instructions, which would surely result in our inability to table a report on salmon before the end of the session. If we hear from the minister before the drafting instructions, we won't get this report tabled.

Otherwise, we can hear from the minister after the break week and proceed with the drafting instructions and setting a deadline for recommendations on the salmon study, as planned.

I see Mr. Bragdon. You have your hand up.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we can proceed with the drafting instructions prior to the minister appearing before the committee again, so that the analysts can get under way with the drafting. Then obviously the questions that may come to the minister may not be exclusively to the Pacific salmon study. They may be pertaining to other issues as well.

We're fine with it being after the drafting instructions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I thought that would be the safest way, but again it's up to the committee.

Mr. Morrissey, you had your hand up.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

I have a question. I had submitted a list of four or five names on the salmon study. Do we know where those went to?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I'll have to ask the clerk to help me with that question.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Yes, they were submitted to the clerk. I would just like to know if they're going to be called and if they're available to appear on short notice.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Tina Miller]

Mr. Chair, I am working on Monday's meeting scheduled for salmon. With the analysts, I pulled selected witnesses from the lists that were provided, and yes, I have reached out to some of the witnesses on that list for Monday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that very much.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thanks, Chair.

I agree with Mr. Bragdon and the others. This is the most practical solution to having this study tabled in the House before it adjourns in the latter part of June and hearing from the minister as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Morrissey.

Mr. Johns, you have your hand up.

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

First, I absolutely support Mr. Bragdon's plan. We need to get this study in.

With regard to witnesses, I know this committee has been great with providing some flexibility in other studies. After the deadline, we added a name that was really important to us, and I'm hoping that person will be able to appear as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

All right. Thank you, Mr. Johns.

Mel, you have your hand up. Is it on this salmon study issue?