Fisheries Committee on May 30th, 2024

[Peter Westley]

Thank you for that question.

I will be more punctual. I didn't realize that there was a six-minute response time, so I'll talk faster.

I think there has been a response. The response has been that as the stocks have declined in abundance, there has generally been a decrease in the harvest and more and increasing restrictions. That is consistent with our basic understanding of fisheries management that if there is a surplus of individuals beyond what is needed for the spawning stock to replace itself, that can be harvested and that, as the stock goes down, the harvest needs to be restricted.

There absolutely have been responses. I think the question before us now is.... That has already been done in-river and, to Chief Pitka's point, that conservation has been on the back of the local people. They've been doing that. That still seems to not be working. The salmon stocks are still declining. The question before us is, what do we do in addition to those other tools? What is in front of us? Turning our attention to other sources of mortality beyond what's happening in the river, what's happening in the ocean that we might have some control over?

The ones that come to mind are things that have been brought up. Bycatch by commercial fisheries is part of this. It is not “the only”; it is part of this conversation to the point that you have to be big and old to go that far up the river. If the ocean is much more dangerous now because of things like bycatch, that's a problem, and we have some control over that. We also know that, ironically, there are a lot of other salmon in the ocean right now: other species of salmon that are competing with chinook salmon and chum salmon for food. We have some control over how many fish are in the ocean, partly because of our commercial fishing practices, but more importantly by the release of these fish from hatcheries that we have control over.

That's my point about actionable things. What pieces of the system do we have an ability to respond to in continuing to think about bycatch and other sources of mortality in ocean fisheries, and also the hatcheries, the hatchery releases? I would also add to the list that more and more evidence is pointing to the role of the resurgence of marine mammal predators and other predators in the ocean, so that the ocean apparently has become much more dangerous in recent times than it used to be.

We need to think about the things we can do to respond to that.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

I'll now continue with Mr. Curtis.

In fact, I want to tell you that we're experiencing the same situation in Quebec with respect to the decline of several species, to the detriment of other species of fish. There's also a lack of predictability in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and we've sounded the alarm about that. Quebec fishers are asking the department to open the redfish fishery. They've been asking for this for at least five years, because there are no more shrimp. Now it's too late. Striped bass is probably wiping out capelin, smelt, and flounder throughout the St. Lawrence. Cod has been decimated in part by pinnipeds. You can see this happening just about everywhere, even in your region.

What could we do at this point to halt this decline and start over from a position where we can turn things around?

We're seeing the same thing across Canada, from east to west.

[David Curtis]

Thank you for that. You brought up really good points.

Quickly, I think the first nations' initiative of having a moratorium for one life cycle, currently, of chinook is a really important part of taking action. That is something I believe is well overdue, and I look forward to seeing how that impacts what we see and how that will impact the run over the coming seven years.

I also think there's definitely work to be done about raising awareness of this part of the world and of the salmon and the role they play both culturally and in regard to food security within the whole length of the Yukon River.

I very much agree that more work needs to be done, as well, in controlling overfishing and looking at environmental conditions within our oceans. As was mentioned before, in 2020, when the collapse of the chum fishery happened, the official reported bycatch from NOAA of chum salmon just in the pollock fishery alone was 560,000 fish. That's bycatch, which is fish that are mulched, essentially, and thrown overboard. They don't return to the environments in which they originated. We don't know exactly where those fish originated from. They could be from all sorts of different places.

To go back to the notion of fish hatcheries and the impacts of other hatchery fish coming out, it's estimated there's somewhere in the area of 5 billion pink and chum hatchery fish released throughout the north Pacific every year between Russia, Canada, the U.S., Japan and South Korea. I don't know if that number is exact, but those types of impacts definitely need to be studied, understood better and controlled. High seas fisheries, ghost ships, factory vessels out there fishing with massive trawlers, it's incredible technology.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Curtis. We've gone over time here.

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

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Again, it's indeed an honour and privilege to be back at this committee. I'll have to admit off the top that I'm here sitting in for my colleague Lisa Marie Barron from the west coast. I am a Great Lakes guy out of Hamilton.

I want to pick up on the questions by the previous speaker, particularly on the moratorium. This question is for Chief Pitka. Since your appearance at this committee in February, the U.S. has signed the seven-year moratorium on the Yukon chinook, and it has been called monumental and a huge step forward.

However, there have also been some concerns that perhaps it's too little too late—and you voiced concerns about consultation, so I want to give you an opportunity to reflect on that. You had suggested that it was just thrown at you.

How could the consultations have been done better?

[Chief Rhonda Pitka]

The consultations could have started earlier in the process. I think the agreement was also thrown at the Yukon River Panel, so it wasn't just the indigenous tribes in Alaska. We felt like we were very much left out of that particular decision-making, and you are correct that we also feel like it's too little too late. Since we've had five years of no fishing on the Yukon River, none of the runs have come back. There are other factors at play here, and we wanted to explore those more.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I want to give you the opportunity now to reflect on that process, if you could, and how you were essentially left out. What would you have said if you were consulted?

[Chief Rhonda Pitka]

I would have said that I want stronger protections on the cultural fishing of salmon for potlatch and ceremonial purposes. I also would have said that we've had five years of no fishing with very little success in bringing that run back.

Through my work on the Yukon River Panel, we've learned through the years that the years when we've had those really large runs return to the spawning grounds were also years that we've had a full subsistence fishery. Based on those factors, it just doesn't seem like it's going to be a very effective tool. At this point, we've had over 15 years or so of restrictions on net size so that we can have those larger salmon escape. We've had all of these different conservation methods every single year. None of them have made as much of an impact as we would like.

I've heard this run referred to as a way of having more salmon on the spawning grounds because it's like putting money in the bank, but these are natural ecological systems that are very complex. It's not a very good analogy, but I understand how people who don't have backgrounds in fisheries can try to simplify those terms in ways they can understand. I get it, but at the same time, it's simplifying a very complex system in a way that doesn't quite relate to reality.

I would have also said that the only reason there is the amount of knowledge that we have on that particular run and the accuracy of that knowledge is because of those indigenous fishermen in the state of Alaska who have fished that river their whole lives, who have voluntarily given indigenous knowledge to the State of Alaska to manage those runs.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Have you in that panel had the ability to provide submissions?

Forgive me, I'm subbing in at this committee.

Have you provided either this committee in past iterations or through the American counterpart committee, direct recommendations on what you'd like to see out of this?

[Chief Rhonda Pitka]

Yes. The panel process is a bilateral process with the United States and Canada. The United States has their own particular agenda and how they wish to run that.

I'm sorry, by the "United States", I really mean the State of Alaska.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Sure.

For the benefit of this committee, could I ask that you forward those recommendations for consideration by the committee at the report writing stage?

[Chief Rhonda Pitka]

Okay.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I just want to make sure that it's clear and on the record, because I think I heard you say this, but I would love it if you just explicitly stated whether or not you think this agreement will support the recovery of the Yukon chinook.

[Chief Rhonda Pitka]

I think that there are a lot of good things in that particular report, but some of the things feel like too little, too late. I don't think that stopping the subsistence fishery, if there's a harvestable surplus, is going to bring back that run to what it used to be without any further limits on the bycatch of salmon in the ocean or stopping the trawlers.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

My colleague referenced in her notes for me that you had an exchange with her, and I believe that what you'd stated is that it was less than 1% of statewide harvesting.

Is that correct?

[Chief Rhonda Pitka]

Yes, that is correct.

I forgot to mention my source to her at our last committee meeting. That was actually from the State of Alaska website on subsistence. Of the total take 1% is subsistence-related.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'll likely come back to this same line of questioning of you, Chief, at my next round.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

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

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I say, MP Green, that was pretty good for a guy from Lake Ontario.

I have a fellow Lake Ontario Conservative...Lake Erie. Sorry, I shouldn't mix up the lakes. We have a Lake Erie member here in Mr. Epp.

I'd like to start perhaps with Dr. Westley.

I believe I heard in your opening that you said that we need to focus on science that will make a difference.

I might draw two things. One is that we haven't done science that makes a difference with regard to the Yukon salmon. Two, what would that exactly be that's not being done now?

[Peter Westley]

Thank you for that.

We have done a lot of really good science and we have learned a lot about the ecology, the biology, diseases and migration. We have learned a lot and we have done a lot of good science.

My point is, science that helps inform decision-making around things that are actionable is what is needed. We know there are a lot of hatchery fish being put into the ocean. That's a fact. We need science that can better understand, if we change the number of hatchery fish that are put into the ocean, what is the effect that would likely have on the growth of chinook and the survival of chinook? It would help inform the decisions of how many less fish or what fish should be released into the ocean.

That's a complex question, but science can help inform, essentially, the trade-offs: If we do this, what are we likely to get from that decision?

Science that helps inform trade-offs and decision-making is what I mean by actionable science. That is really important science.

To David Curtis's point, science that is really good for helping understand salmon ecology and biology, while fascinating and important, may not provide the levers for us to pull to make a difference, if that makes sense, sir.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

This is just a little more precision, but I think it's there. I think I have it, between what Mr. Curtis said and what you're saying.

We've heard this from other testimony. The amount of farmed, hatchery—whatever you want to call it—or commercially bred pink and chum that is being thrown into the ocean, particularly by other countries, is shocking and I don't think we have control over that.

There's only so much food for salmon, so if you overpopulate one it's obviously going to have an environmental impact on the others.

Is that some of the science that you say we don't have?

[Peter Westley]

Thank you for that.

As the facts have changed, our minds need to change. Our opinions need to change as the weight of evidence changes.

When I was studying fisheries 20 years ago, the ocean was really still taught as a black box—that we don't know what goes on in the ocean. There was not evidence at the time that the ocean was limited in terms of the amount of food. It stands to reason that there are always limits in nature, but we did not really have the evidence to say that the ocean has a capacity and that we are close to it.

Now the evidence is that we are at that limit and sometimes past it. The capacity is changing.

Yes, you are right. The hatchery fish from other countries are a huge part of this complex issue, but let us not kid ourselves that 60 million or so Bristol Bay sockeye salmon that are all wild are also sharing that ocean. There are a lot of wild fish that are part of this, but we have more direct control on the hatchery.

This is not to villainize hatcheries. It's the fact that we have control over that and we can use science to inform those decisions on how we should be reforming what we do with hatcheries.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Testimony here from earlier witnesses was that over the last number of years, there's actually been little to no DFO C and P enforcement on the river, no matter what the rules were.

Is that something that you, as somebody who spent a lot of time studying this river in this situation, have seen, as well?

Mr. Curtis.

[David Curtis]

Commercial fishers on the Canadian side and first nations fishers have complied very well with DFO management regulations and efforts at conservation, especially since I've been involved in the fishery from the early 2000s. Prior to that, I can't really speak with any authority on it.

The fishers on this side of the border have worked hand in hand and followed conservation efforts that have been brought to us by DFO and by managers.

There hasn't been a lot of—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I get that. I just wanted to make sure about DFO, not—