Fisheries Committee on March 22nd, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We will now call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 11 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on January 18, 2022, the committee is resuming its study of flood control and mitigation systems in British Columbia.

This meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021.

Interpretation services are available for this meeting. Please inform me immediately if interpretation is lost and we'll ensure it is restored before resuming.

The “raise hand” feature at the bottom of the screen can be used at any time if you wish to speak or alert the chair. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking, and please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your microphone should be on mute.

I remind everyone that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. I'd also like to remind all participants that screenshots or taking photos of your screen are not permitted.

With the number of witnesses today, it would be helpful if members could identify the witness they would like to respond when asking their questions.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses today.

From the Fraser Valley Angling Guides Association, we have Kevin Estrada; from the Lower Fraser Fisheries Alliance, Murray Ned-Kwilosintun, executive director; from the Pacific Salmon Foundation, Jason Hwang, vice-president; from Pacific Streamkeepers Federation, ZoAnn Morten, executive director; and from the Stó:lo Tribal Council, we have Tyrone McNeil, president.

I don't think Tanis Gower from the Watershed Watch Society is here yet, their science and policy adviser. If she joins, we'll admit her and we'll take it from there, but we'll move on to get the committee started.

I'd like to welcome the honourable member from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her attendance here today; as well, we welcome back Mr. Strahl to join the committee, albeit by Zoom. He's very familiar with this committee, as he spent a number of years on it that I know of for sure.

We will now go to the speeches by witnesses.

I will go to Mr. Estrada first, for five minutes or less, please.

[Kevin Estrada, Director, Fraser Valley Angling Guides Association]

Thank you, Chair.

We'd like to thank you for the invitation to appear today. We understand that the purpose of the study is to examine the impacts of flood protection infrastructure on fish stocks in the Pacific region. This is an important topic. I want to provide you with the perspective of the Fraser Valley Angling Guides Association membership, who were on the ground and on the water during the catastrophic flood events that took place in our region in November of last year.

The Fraser Valley Angling Guides Association is an organization of professionally licensed guides. In our 23 years, we have been involved in educational programs, funded projects through the Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation and collected valuable data on the sturgeon fishery, for which we donate in kind over $800,000 a year annually. This in-kind data is used to help the government for fisheries management and, of course, our livelihoods depend on a healthy aquatic system to run our sustainable tourism-based businesses.

While there is no doubt that flood protection infrastructure has an impact on fish habitat, when that flood protection infrastructure fails, as parts of it did last November, the impacts on fish habitat are even greater.

Our members not only provided critical first responder capabilities for the people impacted in the flood zone, but we also provided critical transportation services to those whose road access was cut off for days and sometimes weeks at a time. We partnered with big organizations like Telus to deliver food and medical supplies to indigenous communities along the Fraser River. We responded to individual requests for transport for emergency medical appointments that could not wait until the roads were open.

We also found an important role in rescuing stranded salmon and sturgeon that were found on the wrong side of dikes that had blown out and from pump stations that were not fish friendly. Partnering with GlobalMedic, we helped to deliver flood relief kits and undertook a comprehensive waterway mapping project using state-of-the-art drone technology, which helped us determine where stranded fish could be and how to better respond to the next flood should it occur. Some of our rescues that gained national and international attention were transporting trapped families out of Hope; countless animal rescues on the Sumas flats; and bringing people to those critical dialysis and cancer treatments.

We are still tabulating the data, but the early indications are that we're into several hundred thousands of dollars in costs to our members. This is expected to grow in the spring for debris collection and sturgeon rescues in the Sumas slough. Despite our organization being highlighted in the media consistently for over a month, we did not have anyone from the federal government reach out to see what we needed or how they could be of assistance.

Our association members played a vital role that nobody else could in those early days of the flood. We were on the ground within hours of the dikes breaching and the rivers topping over their banks. We have repeatedly asked the provincial and federal levels of government to assist in offsetting the significant costs that were incurred by our members in playing this critical role, but to date, the buck has been passed again and again.

Unfortunately, Fisheries and Oceans have told us to talk to the provincial emergency management program. The emergency management program has told us that we can only be reimbursed if we are registered contractors. We are fishing guides who answered the call of our community. We're not professional grant-writers who have the time or the expertise to wade through government red tape.

We are asking you to recommend to the government that they work with DFO officials to formalize a memorandum of understanding with organizations like ours to ensure we are adequately insured, trained, authorized and compensated for future habitat and fish protection activities that we undertake.

The floods have been a humbling experience. We witnessed the loss of life, the decimation of livelihoods, the destruction of property and the devastating impact on the community, but we also saw the paralysis of our response mechanisms, which left our members and others as the de facto first responders because of our skills and equipment. Our system, the system that you, as elected officials, oversee, failed the people of British Columbia. I am testifying before you today to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

We'll now go to the Lower Fraser Fisheries Alliance.

Murray, when you're ready, go ahead for five minutes or less, please.

[Murray Ned-Kwilosintun, Executive Director, Lower Fraser Fisheries Alliance]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak today.

My ancestral name is Kwilosintun. My English name is Murray Ned. I'm the executive director of the Lower Fraser Fisheries Alliance. We are an alliance of 30 first nations along the lower Fraser River who work together to advocate for the health of fish and water. I also serve on council at my home village, Sumas First Nation, where I've held the fisheries portfolio for many years.

Before I begin, I want to acknowledge our neighbours on the Sumas Prairie and Abbotsford, especially the farming community, whose homes and livelihoods [Technical difficulty—Editor] flooding events. I'm not certain that all of them will be able to build back better or rebuild. For those who are able to rebuild, I hope they don't have to risk it all again in the future.

The 2021 atmospheric rivers and subsequent Sumas Prairie flooding events brought Sumas Lake back to its former state, exactly as it was 100 years ago. For those who aren't aware, there was a massive lake between Abbotsford and Chilliwack, known to us as Semá:th Xόtsa, which was occupied by our people. Spanning an area of 36,000 acres, Semá:th Xόtsa could naturally absorb the changing water levels in nearby rivers, including Fraser River freshets. It was host to thousands of birds and fish, including all five Pacific salmon species, steelhead and sturgeon. The Semá:th people relied on the lake for sustenance and its central location for easy travel to other harvesting, gathering and hunting areas.

In 1915 the royal commission met with Sumas Chief Selesmlton about diking and draining Semá:th Xόtsa. He told them that it would mean more starvation for us, “because the lake is one of the greatest spawning grounds”. This diking would cut it off, and in that way it would cut off our fish supply.

In 1924 the lake was drained. It is now supported by dikes, small canals and the Barrowtown pump station.

A century later, the Semá:th people still feel the devastating effects of losing the lake. It's important to reflect and fully understand the environmental impacts and remember that Semá:th Xόtsa isn't really gone; it's simply being suppressed by vulnerable flood infrastructure.

In the aftermath of the 2021 Sumas Prairie flooding, the Lower Fraser Fisheries Alliance contacted government agencies on behalf of Sumas and other first nations to organize fish recovery and water quality testing. It quickly became evident that there were limited to no immediate government emergency plans in place for these purposes. It was also difficult to identify who had the decision-making authority and responsibility among the multiple jurisdictions and ministries involved.

Not wanting to wait, nations like Sumas proceeded to partner with NGOs and other interest groups to deploy fish recovery and water quality testing. Since then, the federal government has announced a $5-billion flood recovery plan, but there hasn't been any formal engagement with lower Fraser first nations. UNDRIP requires that any flood planning and proposed infrastructure improvements must have the nations' free, prior and informed consent. Nations must be part of the planning process to determine what actions and investments will take place in our territories.

Nations understand their watersheds better than anyone, and have a growing capacity to participate in flood recovery and emergency response implementation through organizations like the Lower Fraser Fisheries Alliance, the Emergency Planning Secretariat and the S’ólh Téméxw Stewardship Alliance, to name a few. What we need now is government partnership and a commitment to invest in developing that capacity further to support the nations and rights holders.

As a witness to both the 1990 and 2021 flood events, I was reminded that the spirit of the Semá:th Xόtsa is alive and well. Both times I enjoyed temporary lakefront property, and it became evident to me why our ancestors located Semá:th village where they did, on high ground.

In our Halq'emeylem language, there is a word, lets'emo:t, which means one heart, one mind: All things are connected. Our ancestors chose wisely to harmonize their lives with the natural landscape rather than try to control it or change it. Today we face the realities of rising sea levels and climate change, and must consider natural flood management options, including the gradual return of natural water surge areas like Semá:th Xόtsa. This is only one example of many in the lower Fraser.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak to the standing committee today.

I look forward to the dialogue and questions.

[Witness spoke in Halq'eméylem]

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

It's great that witnesses are going just a little under the five-minute mark so far. Hopefully we can keep that up.

We'll now go to Jason, from the Pacific Salmon Foundation, for five minutes or less, please.

[Jason Hwang, Vice-President, Pacific Salmon Foundation]

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for inviting me to appear today.

My name is Jason Hwang. I'm the vice-president for salmon programs with the Pacific Salmon Foundation. I'm coming to you today from Kamloops, the traditional territory of the Tk’emlúps te Secwe̓pemc people.

This committee will know from your study last year on Pacific salmon that many populations are in trouble and they need our help. The government has just committed $647 million to Pacific salmon. It seems like a lot, but the government has stated an intent to invest $5 billion in flood response.

Now, rivers are supposed to flood and salmon are adapted to use the flood plain during a flood. When we cut off flood plains, we change the ecosystem and we cut off habitats that salmon depend on.

Climate change is predicted to make floods more frequent and intense. Do we just build more pump stations, make more dykes, build them bigger and higher, and then wonder what happened to the salmon? We have the knowledge and opportunity to do better for our people, salmon and natural environments.

I'm going to make two key points today.

The first one is building on what we heard from the previous witnesses this morning: The response to fish and fish habitat issues from the flood has been slow and coordination has been poor.

I understand that DFO has an approach to wait for freshet for some things, and I agree with that. However, there have also been time-sensitive things for salmon and other fish that were not assessed or addressed directly by DFO or the Province of B.C.

The PSF has committed approximately $200,000 to more than 20 time-sensitive flood-related projects that government was unwilling or unable to support. Here are just two examples.

There were multiple sites where off-channel refuge areas used by salmon were damaged or cut off by debris from the flood. For just a few thousand dollars and a few hours of work, many of these areas were cleaned out and reconnected, saving thousands and thousands of juvenile salmon. In another case, we supported the rebuilding of a channel, and the next day 40 adult coho showed up and began spawning. All of this would have been lost if action had not been taken immediately.

The gap in leadership and coordination from B.C. and DFO on fish and fish habitat issues continues to this day.

My second key point is that when we think about flooding, salmon and the natural environment need to be part of the design, not something that you think about afterwards.

Flood infrastructure and salmon intersect. The investments in rebuilding and improving our infrastructure need to be done with consideration and measures that also enable the natural environment to function and provide the necessary habitat conditions that salmon and other species require.

We know that trying to constrain rivers does not work. Jurisdictions across the globe have recognized this and are undertaking programs to adjust their flood plain use. Major infrastructure investment is an opportunity to rebuild smarter, to meet human and economic needs and also undo some of the past impacts to salmon and natural environments.

Our neighbours in Washington state have a program called floodplains by design. It works to accelerate integrated efforts to reduce flood risks and restore habitat along Washington's major river corridors. Its goal is to improve the resiliency of flood plains in order to protect local communities and the health of the environment.

So, do we use public dollars to rebuild a dyke that has failed regularly over the decades and also cuts off important flood plain habitat for salmon? Or, do we adjust our vision and expectations and use the dollars to support a farmer in the flood plains to transition to a flood-tolerant crop that can sustain occasional or seasonal flooding.

I have two recommendations for the committee to consider.

The first is that we are going to see more of this kind of event. If we're going to make the best use of our current opportunities, we need leadership from our federal government, not just the typical types of responses and actions that have gotten us to where we are at now.

Second, we need to connect the funding from the federal government for flood infrastructure and recovery to the outcomes we need for salmon. We have a choice. We can invest public dollars in things that are bad for salmon, or we can use public dollars to lead the way to invest in solutions that are good for people and for salmon.

In closing, when it comes to flood infrastructure and responding to floods, we need to change something we've done the wrong way for a long time. There is a legacy of development in flood plains. Jurisdictions around the world—and right next door—are changing how they view development in flood plains and how they invest in flood-plain planning, infrastructure and restoration.

There is an opportunity for a win-win-win, for people, our economy and our salmon, but this requires leadership and a push for change versus a default to the status quo.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's the conclusion of my opening statement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hwang. We'll now go to Ms. Morten for five minutes or less.

Go ahead, please.

[ZoAnn Morten, Executive Director, Pacific Streamkeepers Federation]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the fisheries standing committee. My name is ZoAnn Morten and I work for the Pacific Streamkeepers Federation, through which I'm lucky enough to work with thousands of streams and streamkeepers across B.C.

We are here today to speak to some of the risks of flood control, and at top of mind is that we risk forgetting that flooding is part of the natural process. Flooding is not always a negative to fish and fish habitat. We need to assess the goodness as well as the detriments.

A risk with flood controls is that we tend to think they allow us to do what we want throughout the watershed while containing river flows. For ages, we have taken minimal efforts to protect the natural function of the landscape while extracting maximum value for users. Now that the flood waters have exceeded the ability of current flood controls to protect life and property, we open the public purse to repair the damage and reinforce what failed.

Flood controls have drawn an artificial line. People think that behind this line, we can develop, and the water will be confined to the other side. Dikes and gates have given us a false sense of security. In mid-November, a lower Fraser River municipality granted a permit for development right on a flood plain.

Flood control infrastructure has made silos within governments. While one government is responsible for fish and fish habitat, another is responsible for dike installation and maintenance, while yet another works with agriculture and urban development to keep the lands drained. Communication between the silos is limited, and each works within its own mandates. I haven't seen the protection of fish take priority during planning processes, and with DFO being largely a regulatory body, it is often brought in only once the plans are already complete.

I look forward to this study bringing fish and fish habitat protection into the mix.

Skill sets are often linked to a job, so a person who is a dike builder may know about stream velocity to understand the size of dike to build to keep the water flowing past an area without causing damage to the dike, but they may not be aware of the resulting change to the natural flow patterns and the maximum velocity that a salmon fry can navigate. Not everyone sees salmon as an asset on their lands, and the flood control measures add a sense of “this is my area, and this is yours.”

As to the physical nature and risks of the flood control measures, with regard to dikes, there was a time when dikes were vegetated to allow the waters to be shaded so as to be kept cool, and the vegetation trailed into the waterways to distribute the flows and allow for spots for fish to hide and leaf litter to fall into the streams. Today's dike management, however, is much different, and the vegetation is no longer allowed to grow. Dikes are mowed according to scheduled maintenance routines, and the timing of the mowing doesn't always line up with the life cycle timing that salmon need.

In the past, dikes were erected to allow flood plains to be behind the structures which, we are finding, does not give the streams the room they need, and they are really being taxed at this time of additional storm-on-storm events and with the continued manipulation of the land upstream.

Floodgates are typically built with limited concern for habitat. They're just cement with a hole and a closure. Human error coupled with a failure to pass along information regarding the placement of these structures and the need to control them often causes hardship to fish. We have often heard groups say that they were walking by and noticed that the gates were closed while the migration of fish was occurring. We know that fish want to come up during the spawn return times, but we are a little less clear as to the timing of smolt migration and the fries' travel plans as they explore one stream and then go on to the next while looking for habitat, food, areas of lower activity levels or just clean, cool water.

Keeping these floodgates open seems to be something that is more part of a desk job than a day-to-day operations obligation.

With regard to pump stations, I'm hoping that Watershed Watch will be here. They do a thorough job of explaining the cons of pump stations. My stomach reels when I think of the damage done to fish for no reason due to these non-fish-friendly systems, and I would ask that no public funds be allotted to fish pumps or other structures that are not able to allow fish of all sizes to pass through without killing or mutilating them.

The Fisheries Act suggests that we cannot kill fish by means other than fishing, and yet the installation of fish-killing pumps still goes on. When we are thinking of flood control of any kind, I think we have to remember that if the tide can't get into an area, neither can a fish. So let's open up those controlled waterways to allow the safe passage of fish into their home waters, and work with water from the time it hits the ground.

This is my third attempt at keeping my thoughts below five minutes, and I hope there is still some clear thinking in there somewhere. Thank you for this opportunity and for your continued support of fish and fish habitat.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that. You're just barely under your five-minute mark, so you've accomplished it again.

We'll now go to Mr. McNeil from the Stó:lo Tribal Council, for five minutes or less.

[Chief Tyrone McNeil, President, Stó:lo Tribal Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

As mentioned, I'm Tyrone McNeil from the Stó:lo Tribal Council, and I'm also speaking to you as the chair of the Emergency Planning Secretariat here in the Upper Fraser Valley but covering all 31 mainland coast villages, from Yale to Semiahmoo to Squamish.

There are a few things that I'd like you to consider this morning.

First of all, on the question directly regarding the impact on salmon, starting with the Coquihalla River downstream and the top of the Coquihalla, these are our title lands.

I'm really concerned, Committee, by the complete disregard of any regulatory inspection during the week immediately after the rain event with regard to the emergency works made by Trans Mountain. There were permits allowing Trans Mountain to get into the water to do the works, which is absolutely understandable, but there are no conditions to safeguard fish. There are no conditions in there to take into account existing provincial regulations on fish or the environment. I call it a “get out of jail free card”—do whatever you want—because there are no conditions on the permit.

That strikes me as critical because, as you may be aware, there's a lot of acid rock in the Coquihalla. That's what I'm really concerned about. There are no testing assessments for acid rock anywhere.

They're diverting the river. Although this event happened in November, they're currently diverting a portion of the Coquihalla River, supposedly still under an emergency order, to circumvent all regulations and circumvent our consultation in that. There are definitely some concerns around the Coquihalla.

There are opportunities to look at that and learn as we go forward. I get the necessity for emergency works, but nobody should get a get out of jail free card. There has to be consideration for salmon habitat. We may damage some of it, but if you're cognizant of it, you'll do that much less damage to it.

As we move down into the valley here, there were a number of smaller rock slides over the smaller creeks. In Hicks Creek, right here by Seabird, where I am, coho were actually spawning in the stream when the event happened. This creek was diverted. We found dead coho in farmers' fields. Luckily, we got hold of a local DFO fellow, who gave us immediate direction to go in there and do what we needed to do to reconnect the water again.

At the local level, there was really quick action, but coming back to the Coquihalla, there wasn't a single DFO monitor or inspector. There was no federal or provincial monitor or inspector on the Coquihalla after the event until we, as first nations, pushed hard. Then the BC Oil and Gas Commission sent out inspectors. The CER sent out inspectors. I have yet to hear of any inspections by DFO.

Coming farther into the main stem of the Fraser, we're seeing a lot of new gravel buildup, which is weird for November. Typically, we get it immediately after the spring freshet, but there's more and more fine gravel coming in. In the last number of years, there have been about a million cubic metres, but that's based on freshet. That's not based on the November rain event.

That concerns me, because it's filling in sturgeon habitat, spawning habitat, which is getting less and less.... It had the velocity to, in my view, cover the redds of pink and chum salmon that were spawning at the time, just because of the volume of the water in November. It's not typical at all. We really need to be cognizant of the gravel infiltration and put on the table opportunities to extract gravel in a strategic way.

My community of Seabird here has done that over the last number of years in taking a really well-planned, thoughtful, careful look at where to extract gravel to meet Seabird's purposes of protecting the land base but also to promote salmon and sturgeon habitat in particular. With all that fine gravel coming in, the bottom of the river is levelling off and flattening off, right? Sturgeon traditionally like deep holes for cooler water. Plus, a lot of their food source gets swept into those deep holes.

In terms of that volume of water coming in, too, one of the contributing factors is that nearly a million hectares of forest land burnt in 2021. The forests have no ability to retain water, washing debris, including wood, into the rivers. It's blocking passageways for fish in some creeks. The woody debris buildup is a concern, because the contractors seem to be looking at it right now and saying, “Oh, right now it's good fish habitat.” I asked them, “Are you looking at that through the lens of another rain event happening this winter or this fall?” They are not. That concerns me, because the amount of woody debris could be doubled and could do more harm to fish habitat, bridges, dikes and everything else.

In that, we're looking at salmon in a broad sense, as was mentioned here, but I really also need to put on the table with you the point that in order to improve the vibrancy, the strength and the liveliness of salmon, I can't help but raise the issue of fish farms. We know they're doing harm to salmon. If we keep getting those fish farms out of the way, the salmon will be stronger and more resilient to these kinds of hazards, and to climate change in general. We need to factor that in.

In factoring that in, our 31 communities are taking the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and applying it regionally. Including the flood plains into the design, as Jason mentioned, is one of the key models we'll be following. If we look at things in a proactive way, we'll have a better understanding of the risk, the regularity of these rain events, and what climate change is doing. We're hearing that there will be less snowpack in the winter and more precipitation in the fall time.

This is an opportunity. We've put this forward to the Committee of British Columbia and Federal Ministers on Disaster Response and Climate Resilience. Your minister is there, and I like what she's saying, but she's the lone voice in supporting salmon.

So look at that investment of $5.1 billion as an opportunity to build back better together. We're all working within a region. We're using that fund to make a difference to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. McNeil. We've actually gone a minute over on your opening statement, so we have to move on. Hopefully, the question time will allow you to get across any other points.

We'll now go to Tanis Gower from the Watershed Watch Salmon Society for five minutes or less.

[Tanis Gower, Science and Policy Advisor, Watershed Watch Salmon Society]

Honourable Chair and committee, today I'm joining you from the traditional territory of the Lkwungen peoples on southern Vancouver Island. Thank you so much for undertaking this study and for inviting us as a witness.

Personally, I'm a biologist with 27 years of experience in habitat restoration for provincial, local and first nations governments, and for non-profits like Watershed Watch. As some of you will know, Watershed Watch is a science-based charity. We work to defend and rebuild B.C.'s wild salmon and their habitats.

Since 2016, we've been raising awareness about the impacts of flood control structures such as dikes, floodgates and pump stations that are unnecessarily blocking access to important habitats for wild salmon in the lower Fraser River. We've mapped over 1,500 kilometres of formerly vital salmon habitats that are now cut off by floodgates that do not open enough for fish or fresh water to flow through. Because the floodgates are often closed, especially during the spring freshet, pumps are activated when water needs to pass through the dikes. Unfortunately, conventional pumps will kill any juvenile salmon that are drawn into them. Most existing pumps are not fish-friendly, and retrofits of these pumps are not required to be fish-friendly currently.

In recognizing these problems, a June 2021 report from this committee recommended: That the Government of Canada, the Province of British Columbia, and where appropriate, First Nation communities review the state of flood control/mitigation systems along the lower Fraser River and their impact on wild salmon, and co-develop a program to update pumping stations and other components, as necessary, to remove risks to wild salmon runs.

We are encouraged by this recommendation, as it supports work already ongoing in our region. For instance, in 2019, a project called resilient waters, which is funded by the B.C. salmon restoration and innovation fund—a provincially and federally funded project—began a review of the state of flood-control systems. It identified 27 priority locations for salmon habitat restoration and fish-friendly infrastructure upgrades. This is a great start. These locations must be part of flood recovery planning, yet a larger response is also urgently needed.

Many, if not most dikes, floodgates and pumps in the Fraser Valley are known to be aging and undersized for the increased water flows happening with climate change. November's floods brought us to a crossroads, and now we need to ensure that rebuilding supports salmon as well as public safety. Fortunately, well-established technical and planning solutions are available and have proven successful in other jurisdictions.

In the short term, the primary need is clear federal guidance and funding criteria to ensure that all flood infrastructure is fish-friendly. This guidance must come from Public Safety Canada, Infrastructure Canada, their provincial counterparts, and with the strong support of DFO.

DFO's regulatory guidance and oversight will also help to ensure that funds are not spent on renewed fish barriers and pumps that kill fish. One regulatory avenue currently is through the process to modernize the regulations for the existing facilities and infrastructure and the death of fish, for which the public comment period is ongoing. These regulations can ensure that flood infrastructure retrofits are fish-friendly.

We also recommend that the provincial and federal governments co-create best management practices to provide much-needed technical guidance for local governments to design and to install fish-friendly infrastructure.

Now that an estimated $5 billion is to be spent on infrastructure upgrades, we must be strategic. For this planning, we must think regionally, not just at the scale of individual local governments. We must consider nature-based solutions and green infrastructure, along with traditional infrastructure, for the multiple benefits and cost savings these solutions provide. For example, this can include giving the river places to flood safely, using setback dikes or restoring flood-plain channels.

As mentioned by other panellists, we can look to other jurisdictions and international best practices. These include the United Nations Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, to which Canada and B.C. are signatories. This framework includes a key concept of building back better during recovery. In Canada, building back better must acknowledge that Fraser River flood-plain habitats are needed by endangered salmon populations that require rebuilding plans under the Fisheries Act. Building back better must also incorporate other federal and provincial objectives, such as species-at-risk recovery, climate adaptation and mitigation, and reconciliation.

In the long term, the best outcomes will come from a holistic, collaborative and strategic approach to flood management.

I trust the solutions we proposed are actionable and will be recommended through Minister Murray to the Committee of British Columbia and Federal Ministers on Disaster Response and Climate Resilience. Following this presentation, a briefing note will be provided that will include further detail on the opportunities and benefits of investing in fish-friendly flood infrastructure and multi-benefit flood plain management.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

We'll now go to our rounds of questioning and answers. I will remind the members there are six panellists. Please identify who you want to answer the question. If you say something like, “I'll leave it up to whoever wants to give an answer”, you could have six hands go up and your round will be gone in no time.

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony today. It's valuable as we move forward in learning how to protect salmon and our communities' futures.

I want to start with Mr. Estrada first, if I could. Do you think DFO is adequately supporting and mobilizing organizations such as yours that can lead grassroots projects and support flood response for humans and for fish?

[Kevin Estrada]

As I stated, the answer is no. I don't believe it's happened. It's obviously something that we've been trying since November to get some attention to. We've got a good opportunity to make sure that we're ready in the future.

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

Thank you.

I'll move now to Mr. Ned with the Lower Fraser Fisheries Alliance. Can you update us on the status of the implementation of the Fraser Salmon Collaborative Management Agreement that has been signed by the government and first nations in your area?

Are you there? Did you hear the question?

[Murray Ned-Kwilosintun]

I heard the question loud and clear. It's regarding the Lower Fraser Collaborative Table. I would adjust your question. It's not a formal agreement with Canada, but a collaboration of the Lower Fraser Fisheries Alliance and 23 first nations. It also includes eight recreational stakeholders in the region and an area E commercial fishery.

In terms of structure, we've currently got a terms of reference in place that gives us the ability to have a working relationship among each other. There's been a lot of contention over a number of years, but that contention was brought to the forefront with a collaboration like this.

We're just in the midst of developing a strategic plan and a longer-term view of how we can work together for fish and opportunities for harvest and conservation.

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

Is that strategic plan looking at adding organization roles and responsibilities for the proponents in the agreement?

[Murray Ned-Kwilosintun]

Yes, absolutely. It's an extension of the terms of reference and it gives us guidance on how we'll work together for fish moving forward between now and the next three to five years.

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

Okay. Thank you.

I'll move on now to Mr. Hwang, if I could. Would it be safe to say that the flooding that occurred in B.C. in November, particularly in the Fraser Valley, impacted fish species and their habitat?

[Jason Hwang]

It is, without question, Mr. Arnold. One point that I would emphasize is that a lot of attention went to the flooding and flood effects in the Fraser Valley area, but as Mr. McNeil noted, it was also significant at the Coquihalla, as well as on the other side of the mountain range, into the Coldwater and Nicola valleys. The devastation from this atmospheric river was significant.

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

DFO has confirmed that they have not measured the impacts of floods. Are you aware of any organization that has measured the impacts of floods on fish and fish habitat?

[Jason Hwang]

Fish and fish habitat have specifically not been well studied. It's been ad hoc and piecemeal at best. As an example, about 10 days ago the first overflight of the Nicola-Coldwater area was undertaken to look for potential urgent or significant problems for fish and fish habitat. It was only undertaken, because an informal group assembled—that included government people, to its credit—but PSF, my organization, had to pay for the flight. No government agency was in a position to support that flight.

Similarly, in the lower Fraser—and some members of this panel are part of this—PSF has been coordinating an informal group to get some organization on who is doing what. The groups are doing parts that they can do themselves, but there is no overarching plan to fully assess the impacts on fish and fish habitat and to look for urgent action that needs to be done more strategically.

My understanding is that DFO is looking at doing a more detailed assessment following freshet, which is reasonable, but there is a miss in terms of looking at things that could be done on an urgent basis in the near-term.

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

Thank you.

When they do get around to measuring how the flooding has impacted fish and fish habitat, what are the key indicators and effects that they should be measuring when they look at this?

[Jason Hwang]

Without getting into a deep academic exercise, because I'm sure that's not what you're looking for, broadly, it's important to recognize that the flood will have had some negative effects. It will also have had some positive effects, if flooding is a natural thing, even though the one that occurred last November was substantial and relatively unprecedented, at least in our modern reported history.

There will be a need to look at critical areas for salmon, particularly in areas that might be cut off or stranded that could be reconnected, or areas that have been unduly changed, because of the interaction of the natural environment and human infrastructure.

There will likely be a need to go and rebuild, or support, accelerated recovery of critical habitats. For instance, the Coldwater and Nicola areas are really challenged in the summertime, especially during drought with high water temperatures. At present, many of the deeper holding pools and holes that salmon and steelhead would rely on at certain times of the year seem to have been filled in, so there might be a need to go to find critical habitat areas like that. Nature will recover them on its own, but salmon and steelhead are in trouble. We probably need to do things to accelerate some of that recovery.