Fisheries Committee on April 28th, 2022

[Jesse Zeman]

Yes, we talk about this and really we're getting into the three pillars of resource management. There's funding, so money. There's science, and there's social support. The social support thing is what we're really zeroing in on, and governance.

We're at a place in time here in British Columbia where things are so bleak, when we talk about 68 and 32 fish, that no one can see themselves in the outcome. I think part of what people are feeling here today is that they feel they don't have a voice. They feel like they're not being heard. You have to have a process where everyone can see themselves in the outcome and they can buy into it, where the federal government takes leadership and says, “Look, we want Pacific salmon on this landscape. We want to restore them. Here's how we're going to do it. You're all going to get a seat on the bus and we're going to bring you along so we can all benefit and take care of these fish in the long run.”

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Yes, we've seen some recent examples of where that science...even the sport fishing advisory board, which was tasked in the sixties to really work with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to give good science and good data year after year after year. I even asked the minister in this committee if she would listen to them and she said she would. Then they just recently came out with this decision that they were going to close the fishery anyway, even though there were fish in this certain time period that would not affect threatened stocks, etc.

We see this, their knowing the science yet still making their own political decisions.

Dr. Riddell, I would ask a similar question. We talked about it before, but you've been around the salmon issue—and I see your grey hair, so I don't want to say too many decades—but you've been around for a while—

[Dr. Brian E. Riddell]

I think maybe too long.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Bring us back to the better days when it all did work.

I see you're a “glass is half full” kind of guy, and you said it can work. Now that we have a bit more time, what would that look like for it to work? You've seen it work well in the past. What needs to change for that to work that same way again?

[Dr. Brian E. Riddell]

I think what you're referring to is that, when there are more fish, there's less conflict. That's not a great insightful statement when you think about it, but when you take it the other way it explains a lot of the animosity and the really tough decisions.

When there's very little and your requirement is conservation first, then you have to put the fish in the spawning grounds when they're below their spawning goals. After that, the law requires you to allocate fish to first nations for FSC. Beyond that, there's an allocation by the department for industrial use. Within industrial use, you have multiple people competing for the same fish.

When fish get very scarce, it's a much more difficult job. That is even part of the sensitivity that Greg referred to in the State of Alaska. Alaska is taking Canadian fish and we are not allowing any fisheries. We're required to because they're our fish and they must go spawning, but we also have other responsibilities for it.

Really, I think one of the things we've been really realizing is that climate change is changing the ocean and the oceans are changing fish in B.C. at a much higher rate than we may have expected. We're seeing it across the board. However, all salmon are not equal. Andrew made a comment about this. The idea that we can do risk assessment on sockeye and then declare that there's no risk to wild salmon is grossly misleading. Wild salmon is five species, plus steelhead and cutthroat. There are many different types of salmon that people don't give credit to.

We need a much more open and honest discussion about this topic, but there is no question in my mind that the future of salmon right now is intricately tied to climate change.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Yes, Dr. Riddell, but how do we have that conversation—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Zimmer. Your time has gone over.

We'll now go to Mr. Hardie for five minutes or less to close it out.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bateman, I think the perception is that science does its work and hands to the minister a nice piece of advice all nicely wrapped up with a bow on top. Is that an unfair expectation of science?

[Dr. Andrew Bateman]

Yes. In short, yes, I think so.

In some cases, no. There are some issues where science can be very clear. There are x number of fish. We need these allocations and we catch y many for a given fishery. That's maybe, sometimes. However, as we've heard today, there are much more controversial topics. The one I mentioned, salmon farming, and the impact on wild salmon, is one of them.

Really, the issue we're discussing is DFO's manipulation of the science advice. Science is not the only decision-making factor at the table. The decision-makers, as others have mentioned, have to weigh competing or complementary demands, the economy being one of them. It's really that the science advice that's presented to the decision-makers, ultimately to the minister, needs to be unfettered by departmental manipulation by mid- and upper-level managers.

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

I'll have to intercede here.

The Discovery Islands reports instantly didn't pass anybody's sniff test. Was it a matter of poor terms of reference? Was it a matter of scientists self-filtering or did somebody do the filtering for them?

[Jesse Zeman]

To be brief, I will refer you to my opening comments. I'll provide more detail in written form.

The CSAS process, especially in that context, is broken.

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

We heard from Dr. Miller-Saunders that the report she had done sat on the bench for 10 years because they couldn't get a consensus.

If I were to put a big R beside the “dispense with consensus model”, would that be out of line?

[Jesse Zeman]

I think that would be a great first step.

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

All right. Thank you.

Dr. Riddell, what don't we know about salmon? An item the other day said that salmon go out to the deep blue and they're not coming back. We don't know what's happening out there.

What don't we know? What would you prioritize as needing really focused and well-funded research?

[Dr. Brian E. Riddell]

How much time do you have?

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

I have two minutes.

[Dr. Brian E. Riddell]

Then I'll have to do the short version, which won't do it service.

Number one, I think the first priority is that Canada has to get back to the ocean. That should not be any surprise to anybody who has followed what we've been doing out here for a while. We just took a gillnetter out to the ocean and we caught more steelhead salmon in the ocean than any Pacific salmon. No one is going to explain that to you. We definitely need to get back out there.

We need to put money into hatchery assessment and research. Jesse's comment about the number of steelhead salmon is staggering. Who could manage it down to that level? I used to call that the American plan. It now applies to Canada. If you talk to the provincial government, it will not even discuss a hatchery to restore these fish. That is irresponsible. The bottom line is that if you have tens of fish, you have a genetic bottleneck that you must get out of or you are damning those fish forever. There is no question that, with our genomic knowledge now, we can manage small population sizes.

The third thing is effective conservation and restoration. We talk about restoration. You just put $700 million into restoration. What are you going to do? We've been doing it for decades. Where are the fish? This speaks to the fact that it is a big circle—the circle of life—and we're losing them at sea. We have the technology to study what's going on at sea. We do not have the people working on the biology of salmon at sea. We do not have the ships to go to sea. We have lots of technology, but we don't have anybody focused on it.

If you want to put a group together and you have the PSSI funds, there are many people who would willingly work with you to determine how to restore fish and to determine what we don't know.

It's not a simple question.

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

Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie.

That clews up our rounds of questioning for today's committee meeting.

I want to say a big thank you to our witnesses, especially for their generous allotment of time to us today, as we were delayed a little because of a vote. That's the season we're into right now. It can happen any day. Again, a big thank you to the witnesses. The knowledge you shared with us today is of great value. I'll give you a second now to sign off. We'll continue on for a couple of minutes.

Now that everybody's signed off, I just want to mention to everybody that we owe a big thank you to a lot of staff around here who make this work, especially the interpreters, our clerk and our analysts, more particularly. They spend their time taking notes. I watched Michael today. His fingers were going—I couldn't keep up with him—as people were speaking and giving testimony. They put together a report for us at the end of the day, and then we tell them to change this and change that because it's not exactly what we heard, or to put a different spin on it.

Today, of course, is Michael's last day with us. He's been with the committee since 2018. Some of us at the table have been here since then and before. Michael, you've always been the sound of reason in my ear, as a committee member and as a chair. The analysts sometimes steer us in the right direction when we're heading down the wrong one, especially when it comes to writing reports.

I understand, Michael, that you're taking up a position in Washington for a year. I think I speak on behalf of the entire committee when we say we wish you nothing but the best and look forward to you coming back full of even more knowledge than what you have. You have a great deal of it.

We did get a card. All the committee members have signed it.

Actually, I think Madame Desbiens may even sing you a few notes of a song.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

It's a song by Daniel Lavoie called J'ai quitté mon île, which in English would be “I left my island”. The song is in French, but I'll try to tell you what it means in English.

I'm leaving my island. I'm leaving for another country. In English, it's not very poetic necessarily, but in French it's better for me.

I adapted the song, so instead of saying “J'ai quitté mon île”,

I say in French, I'm leaving my colline.

[Musical performance]

I left [my hill]
[For Washington, D.C.]
Left it quietly
No singing or crying
One fine morning, you'll see the sails of my sailboat
Set sail [for the hill]

Good luck, Mr. Chalupovitsch.

[Voices]

Bravo!

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Michael, and safe travels.

[Michael Chalupovitsch, Committee Researcher]

Thank you, everyone. That was really touching.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

The meeting is adjourned.