Fisheries Committee on Nov. 20th, 2024

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

Would it be correct to characterize the Fisheries Act revisions as actually causing a lag in hydroelectric development?

[Francis Bradley]

Yes, that is our opinion. It is causing a lag in potential developments. It's also causing additional costs for authorizations of current projects. Not only is it hindering our future, but it's also adding additional costs to our present.

Frankly, it is going to make it more difficult for Canada to be able to meet its obligations and commitments with respect to greenhouse gas emissions reductions. The ability to build these types of clean projects will depend upon having a pathway forward for current projects and new projects. We don't have that pathway right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold. You went a little bit over, but that's fine.

Mr. Hardie, go ahead for five minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're going to have to scoot through a couple of questions here.

Going back to 2012 and the Cohen report, recommendation 2 says, “In relation to wild fisheries, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should act in accordance with its paramount regulatory objective to conserve wild fish.” Following on that, of course, we have recommendation 3, which says, “The Government of Canada should remove from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ mandate the promotion of salmon farming as an industry and farmed salmon as a product.”

First of all, do you agree with that second recommendation, that DFO should get out of the business of being mandated to look after your industry?

[Tim Kennedy]

Yes.

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

Where should it go?

[Tim Kennedy]

As I said in my earlier comments, Mr. Hardie, we propose Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, or AAFC.

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

Good.

Now, the other issue has to do with DFO science. We've certainly had some interesting testimony on the quality and credibility of DFO science. It's been particularly, I would say, harmful to the interests of the aquaculture industry in British Columbia.

What would you propose to do with science at the DFO?

[Tim Kennedy]

Mr. Hardie, would you mind if I pass this to Mia Parker, who hasn't spoken yet?

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

Sure.

[Tim Kennedy]

She's a great expert on these things, and I'd love to have her speak. Mia works with Mowi Canada West. She's on our executive committee.

Mia, go ahead, please.

[Mia Parker, Executive Board Member, Canadian Aquaculture Industry Alliance]

Thank you very much for the question.

It's a really interesting paradigm when you talk about what we would do with DFO science. I would say that what we really need to do with DFO science is recruit more scientists.

We have an avalanche, a waterfall, of really high-quality scientists retiring and very few new scientists being recruited to take their place. We're about to have a massive gap in our body of knowledge when it comes not just to aquaculture, but to fisheries management in general, because good management should be evidence-based and it should actually be based on sound science.

We've been speaking about a transition here today and the interactions between wild and farmed fish, but you need to know the stock status and the best ways to conserve wild fish if you're going to manage interactions.

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

I'll have to interrupt you there because my time is short.

It occurs to me that what we've heard in testimony about DFO science is that—and this is my opinion—it's badly compromised because you get industry funding the science, and it has vetting authority over the results of the science, which really doesn't pass the sniff test with a lot of people. I don't think DFO science, as it's done, has done you any favours in your industry.

I'll go to Mr. Bradley.

I need to give you all of the time I have remaining to explain how you differentiate fisheries from a fish. You can't protect a fishery if you don't protect the fish. Can you just explain the difference that you see there, please?

[Francis Bradley]

Certainly. Thank you very much.

The distinction is an important one, because right now, with the focus on individual fish as opposed to supporting the fishery, we find ourselves in a very different situation than we were in previously.

When there is what we refer to as an incidental take—when fish are killed—it is a bad day for my member companies. They have always sought to make sure they operate in a manner that limits that, but they also take action to mitigate those sorts of things by building facilities that now have fish passages, for example. There are a number of examples of that. We have fish hatchery programs. We have habitat enhancement that takes place. In all those cases, the mitigation measures are more than making up for the incidental take—the fish that are killed as a result of our operations.

That doesn't work under the current regime. Under the current regime, we're supposed to be protecting the individual fish as opposed to the overall fishery. For a number of our facilities, we're unable to get those FAAs because fish are being killed, even though the mitigation measures more than make up for that, and that is a problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie.

We'll now go to Madame Desbiens for two and a half minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is all very interesting. It's crazy, I'd like to keep you here for another hour.

Still, I'm going to go back to Mr. Kennedy or Ms. Parker.

Aquaculture straddles two areas, agriculture and fisheries. How can we draft satisfactory legislation, avoid mistakes, improve scientific research and strengthen aquaculture, which, realistically, is becoming a necessity? How can we put in place solid legislation on both fronts that could benefit the development of your industry? It has to address both agriculture and fisheries, because both are involved. What are you proposing?

[Tim Kennedy]

I will speak first, and then I'll turn to Mia.

I would say our vision is that the science would remain with DFO. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans would have the science capacity.

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

Just so you know, we have a minute and a half left.

[Tim Kennedy]

I'll turn it over to Mia to talk about how to improve.

[Mia Parker]

What we'd like to see with that champion role of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is to have the development science—the research into robust fish, the interaction and the management science in terms of the relationship between aquaculture and wild fisheries—with DFO, because they're to manage both groups.

The actual.... How to promote and develop aquaculture and the way you would develop other herd animals, I think, should be with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

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

Do you want to take the few seconds I have left to add something, Mr. Kennedy?

[Tim Kennedy]

The only thing I'd add is that Mr. Hardie mentioned the DFO process. We have said again and again that if there is a problem with the regulatory system under which we are regulated, it's your responsibility and the minister's responsibility to fix it.

Has it been substantially fixed? The supposed problems have been pointed out for many years, but we actually haven't seen substantial fixes to address those things.

Mr. Hardie, those are the responsibilities of your government. We can't do anything as industry. We are simply under those laws. We'd love to have more objective science, but I think it's up to you to make those changes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Ms. Collins for two and a half minutes or less.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Following up on that, it was just in May that the Integrity Commissioner launched an investigation into DFO officials over allegations of attempts to silence scientists on the dangers of open-net fish farms. That was in response to Wild Salmon Forever, a B.C.-based conservation group. Ms. Solloway looked at that and found that it was warranted to launch an investigation into officials trying to dissuade scientists from communicating with media and being public about their research.

I expect it from Conservative governments—the Harper government had a long history of silencing scientists—but it is incredibly disappointing that this is happening under consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments.

Do I have about 30 seconds or a minute left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

You have one and a half minutes.