Evidence of meeting #108 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was fisheries.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Your time of six minutes is up, of course.
We'll go now to Ms. Barron.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted to say a big thank you to all of the witnesses who are here, and for all of your very important work. Apologies for some of the interruptions here. I hope we're able to utilize the rest of our time in hearing from you and gathering this important information.
With that, I want to pass it over to my colleague, the MP for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, to ask you questions today.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to my colleague Ms. Barron for the introduction and for sharing her committee with me.
Obviously this is an issue that affects in a big way folks in the region that I represent. Skeena—Bulkley Valley comprises about 300,000 kilometres of northwest B.C. and includes all of the rivers that have been mentioned so far and many of the fish stocks that are impacted by the Alaskan interception issue.
I want to thank our witnesses for joining us today and sharing this important perspective.
I did bring this up about two years ago in Parliament with the former fisheries minister. At the time, the minister essentially said that because it was a transboundary issue and involved the United States, the government was passing it off to Global Affairs Canada to deal with on a diplomatic basis.
For all three of our witnesses, I'm wondering, have you ever seen hide or hair of Global Affairs Canada on this issue? Is leadership being shown by Canada's diplomats in trying to resolve this important issue?
4:15 p.m.
Executive Director, Watershed Watch Salmon Society
I have not heard or seen anything from Global Affairs Canada.
4:15 p.m.
Executive Director, SkeenaWild Conservation Trust
I have not heard or seen anything from Global Affairs Canada. My understanding was that it was back with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
4:15 p.m.
President, Fish First Consulting, As an Individual
I have not heard that Global Affairs Canada has been involved at all.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It was a disappointing response because it seemed like an attempt to sort of slough off a very vitally important issue to a department that hasn't prioritized it since then.
I'll stay on the topic of leadership. Where does that leadership need to be shown? Which department is the logical lead for this? How much leadership have you seen from the federal government on this issue?
4:20 p.m.
Executive Director, Watershed Watch Salmon Society
I could take a stab at that.
We haven't really seen much from the current minister.
We know that the commissioners within the commission, several of whom are DFO staff, have been stepping up on this issue. Since we started raising these concerns a couple of years ago, it has now shifted the top of the agenda in the Pacific Salmon Commission. I think Mr. Knox can probably confirm that.
The previous minister, Ms. Murray, said that it was at the top of her agenda when she was meeting with the American consul general, I believe, or the American ambassador, a year or two ago, but we haven't really seen much since then. It would be great to hear the current minister speak out on this issue and further elaborate on what the department is able to do beyond what they're already doing, because we really do need to kick it up a notch in terms of diplomacy, both within and outside the process.
4:20 p.m.
President, Fish First Consulting, As an Individual
Yes. My experience is that the department keeps on pushing back and pointing to the treaty as the place to have these discussions, and that is a problem, because the problem we're discussing here is with Alaska. Alaska has an effective veto over any decisions that might affect its fishery.
In terms of the context of the treaty, the treaty not only affects northern B.C., but of course our recreational fisheries are driven by the outcome of the treaty, as is our Fraser River sockeye management. You can't push and can't do too much within the context of the treaty to address specific north coast issues, and that has been a challenge. I think we have to look at solutions beyond that of trying to find an answer within the context of the treaty and overcoming Alaska's effective veto.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
How much willingness has there been on the part of the Alaskans, whether that's the Alaskans who are engaged in the Pacific Salmon Treaty or Alaskan commercial fishers, Alaskan tribes...? How much interest has there been in engaging in a really proactive way on this important issue?
4:20 p.m.
President, Fish First Consulting, As an Individual
I can answer that from this perspective: When I first went up to buy fish in Alaska, I really got a lesson handed to me, which was that Alaskans are not Americans. They are Alaskans number one, and Americans number two. The Alaskan fishermen in no way want to look at giving up fisheries
This is an important perspective. The fisheries that we're really concerned about occupy only a very small number of boats, in relative terms. There are 274 boats that are licensed or have permits to fish in the southern southeast. There are maybe 30 in the areas that we consider a problem.
This is an issue where the American fishermen are standing up for American fishermen, but it really is not all American fishermen. There's an opportunity there to have a discussion with the other 240 southeast permit holders about what they might like to see.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you.
With that, we'll clew this up.
For anyone who wanted to respond, we'd appreciate it if you'd send it in writing to the committee.
We will now go to Mr. Perkins for five minutes or less, please.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Perkins.
This testimony is somewhat shocking. What I just heard was someone standing up for Alaskan fishermen...those are Alaskans and so on.
Who should be standing up for Canadian fishermen, who continue to be impacted and shut down?
I'll start with you, Mr. Taylor.
4:25 p.m.
President, Fish First Consulting, As an Individual
The person who has the mandate to stand up is our Minister of Fisheries. I think she just needs some new ideas of how to address an intractable problem.
The ideas are out there, but they can't be the same old same old. A lot of the advice she's been given is to work within the context of the treaty.
As I pointed out in my opening statements, one of the leading salmon scientists in Canada and ex-lead commissioner on the treaty is saying that the treaty's broken. You can't look to the treaty to fix this problem.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
I heard that in your earlier testimony.
Would you like to elaborate a little further on how he relayed how the treaty is broken and what the problems are with the treaty? How can it be corrected?
Obviously we don't have time to wait for a renegotiation of the treaty to start rebuilding these stocks.
Can you elaborate a little further?
4:25 p.m.
President, Fish First Consulting, As an Individual
Yes. Maybe the most effective way is if we send his statement to you and you can read it.
In essence, he's saying that we're in a new world with climate change. Populations are crashing. The treaty is no longer the framework with which to deal with the problem of Alaska continuing to intercept Canadian fish.
He does not necessarily point to what the answer is, he just argues that we have to look at alternatives to deal with this issue, rather than just the treaty. It's not to say the treaty is not part of the solution, but we're not going to move past Alaska within the context of the treaty. Canada has to stand up and look at alternatives.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you.
This question is possibly for Mr. Hill or Mr. Knox.
Do you have any comments on the status of stock assessments and determining which stocks are being caught in non-selective fisheries? How is that impacting the stock assessments and season openings?
Have those stock assessments actually been done?
4:25 p.m.
Executive Director, SkeenaWild Conservation Trust
Yes, I can answer that.
If we're talking about Alaskan fisheries that are intercepting British Columbia stocks, they are collecting some information. They're doing DNA analysis on the sockeye that they're catching, but they don't provide us with population-level information. They only provide an aggregate of Skeena populations, for example.
For chinook salmon, they're collecting DNA and it's pretty good. For chum salmon—which I mentioned are in extremely low levels; they're an extreme conservation concern—they're collecting no information and they could be doing DNA analysis.
For coho populations, they could be collecting DNA, but they're not. For steelhead, they're collecting no DNA and they're also not collecting any information on how many steelhead are being caught and released, or are dying.
For pink salmon, they're not providing any information on how many B.C. pink salmon are being caught.
It's poor. Then on—
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you. It's poor.
Can you explain a little about how that data could be obtained? Is that through sampling bycatch? Is that bycatch going to waste?
I think we only have about half a minute.
4:25 p.m.
Executive Director, SkeenaWild Conservation Trust
They can collect it. They can do DNA analysis on it. It's a common practice in most fisheries. They even have money within the northern fund of the Pacific Salmon Treaty to do that analysis. The money is there and they can do it. They already have sampling programs in place. It's just a matter of adding more sampling.
It's totally doable. It's done in a lot of fisheries around the world, including in British Columbia.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Arnold. You had three seconds to spare.
We'll now go to Mr. Hardie for five minutes.
