Fisheries Committee on May 12th, 2022

[Tasha Sutcliffe]

It's the latter. Okay.

Some examples of the socio-economic data that I feel are really important to inform decision-making could be categorized in different ways. One example when looking at economics, which is brought up regularly, would be the equitable distribution of benefit. It's a crucial indicator around how economics are benefiting and who they're benefiting.

In terms of social, there is the ability to access resources, diversity and occupation, community relationships, cultural leaders, traditions and knowledge, and preservation of heritage sites. As examples in health, there are indicators around physical and mental health. In governance, there's transparency, access to information, engagement and voice. In physical assets, there are things around the level of community infrastructure.

There are a lot of different ways that social science can be networked under a suite of categories. Very quickly, when you start to look at this broader range of societal, intended outcomes, it can inform decision-making. Another example that I—

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

I'm sorry for interrupting you, Ms. Sutcliffe, but our time is limited.

Thank you for your answer. It gives us a good idea of the situation.

Along the same lines, Ms. Morton, I'd like to talk to you about predictability.

I'll give you an example. In eastern Canada, that is to say in Quebec, the decision was made to put an end to herring and mackerel fishing altogether. Mr. Robert told us that this was to be expected.

How can predictability be improved given the draconian decisions being made by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans?

Is there any science or scientists who could provide more details so that fishers, who are currently suffering from this decision, can better anticipate the consequences of such measures so that they can get support to redirect their type of fishing?

[Alexandra Morton]

I think this goes back to building a better pathway between the science and the minister. There have been warnings about the decline of wild salmon, very strong warnings, but because a lot of it has been suppressed, the fishermen don't really grasp what is going on, so I believe that a department of wild salmon within DFO, a director of wild salmon, is absolutely critical to provide clarity to all sides of this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

You still have one and a half minutes.

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

Okay.

I'll now turn to Mr. Proboszcz, whose testimony was very interesting.

Mr. Proboszcz, you were clear that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans chooses the scientific data that best suits it.

Can you give us a specific example of this?

[Stan Proboszcz]

Yes, I go over this in my document, which has a lot more detail and synthesis and the actual specific references. Essentially, we had a federal inquiry that put the onus on DFO to show that salmon farms were of minimal risk. My experience was that there were initially going to be 10 risk assessments. I assumed one of them would be sea lice. One risk assessment needed to be on sea lice, really. As we moved from 2012 to 2020, which was the deadline the Cohen inquiry put on DFO to come up with this evidence, soon it appeared that there were only going to be nine risk assessments. In the meantime, there were some pretty interesting lab studies being conducted in DFO looking at sea lice effects on sockeye.

I personally believe that DFO maybe changed the plan because that research turned out to be quite significant in showing that sea lice dramatically affect the health of sockeye salmon. DFO started to communicate about this evidence that they had of minimal risk, but they don't talk about these studies at all in their communications at the press conference or later on, when they talked to media people. I think it's because this research was inconvenient, and that's the clear example I illustrate in my document.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madame Desbiens.

We'll go to Ms. Barron for six minutes or less, please.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses who are here to talk about this important topic.

My first question I wanted to direct to Galagame'. I want to use your traditional name, Mr. Chamberlin, of course. I wanted to take a moment to thank you for all of your work, Bob, in the protection of wild salmon and continued work around indigenous rights. I wanted to ask you if you could expand a little bit around the precautionary principle and how it applies to fish farm operations and what the trickle effect might be from the lack of or the current state of the precautionary principle that is in place.

Thank you.

[Robert Chamberlin]

Thank you, Lisa Marie, for using my traditional name. I greatly appreciate it.

In terms of the precautionary principle, during the consultation process for Discovery Islands, that was a big part of the discussions, and we learned that there is no policy pertaining to fish farms in British Columbia to implement the precautionary principle. We were told that they'd gather what we described as small little tidbits and amass that as some measure of implementation of a precautionary principle.

To me, this is unacceptable when you understand the precautionary principle began after the east coast cod collapse, which we're all too aware of, and now that we've had nine science papers categorically dismissed through the examination of the CSAS process, the precautionary principle begs for the removal of fish farms from coastal British Columbia.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you.

Galagame', you spoke quite a bit about the importance of salmon, not just as a very nutritious food source but around its importance to the culture and traditions of indigenous people. I'm wondering if you can share a little bit around your thoughts on how fish farms may or may not infringe upon indigenous rights.

[Robert Chamberlin]

Thank you for the question.

Consider that there were no salmon rivers directly adjacent to the fish farms in Discovery Islands. The whole consultation process was about the impacts through migratory salmon. When that is the basis and when you consider the Supreme Court ruling of the Haida and the Taku Tlingit, even the potential to infringe on aboriginal rights triggers the duty to consult.

When we know and DFO acknowledges that Fraser River salmon—all stocks, not just sockeye—migrate through the Discovery Islands, and if we are in all good conscience to live up to the Supreme Court law and the constitution of this country, the minister must understand that the infringement of aboriginal rights from fish farm operations extends far beyond the site-specific. It does trigger the duty to consult, which I have never seen DFO even want to contemplate.

I believe it's because the vast majority of British Columbia first nations—we have identified 102—support the transition of fish farms out of the ocean. The DFO minister and the Canadian government must understand that this infringement of rights through the operation of open-net cage fish farms extends across British Columbia.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Galagame'.

I want to direct my last question to you as well to make sure we're able to soak in as much as possible before you leave early.

You had mentioned an encouraging step for indigenous-led science, specifically speaking about the genomics project in the Okanagan. I'm wondering if you can speak a little bit further about this project. How was it developed and why is this so encouraging for you?

[Robert Chamberlin]

Thank you.

The Broughton Archipelago fish farm LOU with the Province of British Columbia was a shared recommendation and some shared decision-making that implemented the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which of course the federal government has committed to do as well.

One outcome was the genome lab. DFO created many hurdles and speed bumps for us to do the testing that was in the agreement through the genome lab in Nanaimo at the Pacific Biological Station, so we put together a proposal to build a genome lab that doesn't have those kinds of impediments to the outcomes of the chosen science that we wanted to pursue. As a result of that, the genome lab is built in the Okanagan Nation Alliance hatchery. As far as I understand, this past year has been about training and capacity, because it's far more complicated than just putting a sample in and pushing the green button.

We're at a place now where this is going to be ready to be functional. In terms of objective science, which clearly is not present within CSAS, the DFO and the stated path of federal and provincial governments to work with first nations on wild salmon, this is an clear opportunity that the government must embrace to advance many of the commitments. Most importantly, it's objective science that can then guide decision-making.

In terms of the question that was given to Alexandra Morton—who our family knows as Gwayum'dzi—about a manager for wild salmon, we need one. We need a first nations role there because of our constitutionally protected rights and because of the special place we have in this country. It would be fundamental to reconciliation and foundational across British Columbia.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Barron. Your time is up.

We'll now go into our second round of questioning.

We'll start with Mr. Arnold for five minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for appearing today. We've heard very interesting testimony throughout this study.

I want to bring us back to how this study's motion was worded so we're focusing on where we really need to get our testimony for the final report. The study motion was dealing with how DFO prioritizes resources and develops scientific studies and advice for the department, how the results of those scientific studies are communicated to the minister and how the minister applies that advice in ministerial decisions.

I'll start off with Mr. Chamberlin, if I could. Pardon me if I don't pronounce your traditional name, Galagame', properly. It's very nice to hear that.

Mr. Chamberlin, in recent months, we've seen the emergence of coalitions of salmon farm operators and indigenous partners. These coalitions are arguing that indigenous partners have the authority to decide whether salmon farms operate in their communities or not. We're also hearing from some of your testimony today the effects on wild salmon, fish or salmon through their entire migratory route.

In your opinion, how should the Government of Canada approach the scenario where indigenous rights for different first nations appear to be at odds?

[Robert Chamberlin]

When we think about first nations, lands, decision-making and consent as the government pursues this, it would be fine and wonderful if the impacts remained site-specific, but clearly they don't. This being the reality and the fact associated with migratory wild salmon, the government is now in a position where it would definitely need to hear first nations' perspectives on consent, but they must also be balanced with what impacts occur that are an infringement of aboriginal rights across the province.

Many times in consultation, many first nation leaders have heard that the government has made a decision contrary to what's been presented in consultation for the greater good, for the greater benefit of Canadians. That, as sorrowful as it is when it occurs, must come into play in this discussion, because the impacts of the Fraser River salmon writ large, not just sockeye, are occurring where the fish farms are operating in Discovery Islands.

That is what I think the Crown needs to do: Balance the impacts and the number of nations' rights that are being infringed upon, against the few jobs and the very small number of first nations that are supportive of this industry. Let's not lose sight of that.

That new coalition started out at 17, and then they misrepresented a number of nations, including mine, and I think it dwindled to a list of eight or nine first nations that are supportive.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Just moments ago, I believe you stated something along the lines that objective science is not present within DFO, and you mentioned the genome lab that has started in the Okanagan Nation Alliance hatchery in Penticton. I've had the opportunity to tour that hatchery and have seen some of the success they're achieving there.

Can you elaborate a little further on the lack of objective science and what you were referring to there?

[Robert Chamberlin]

In my earlier remarks, I highlighted what Mr. Jay Parsons' response was to me when I dissected and presented the CSAS process. When I say “lack of objective science”, I'm speaking about CSAS in relation to open-net cage fish farms.

When you have a proponent of fish farm company number one, and then the involvement of industry—which are fish farm companies two, three and four—and then stakeholders in multi-industry associations who can be brought in and who select people they're comfortable with to develop the terms of reference and to develop a list of who's going to review the science and develop a paper for peer review, there is no objectivity there.

If we were to pick another industry or another situation like tobacco, this would be utterly unacceptable to Canadians. It would be a very difficult time to pass the red-face test. I think Canadians deserve more. We need to move to an independent science stream in addition to DFO. That way, we could have shared methodologies and shared sampling, and the outcome would mean someone is going to have to take the tablespoon of Buckley's, and someone won't have to.

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

Thank you. I wish I had more time for other panellists, but I believe my time is up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

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

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. From Buckley's to me, I'm honoured.

This study has been very illuminating right up to speaking to you, so I thank you for all your insights, your experience and your terms of reference.

I will be sharing my time with MP May.

Galagame', we heard Dr. Morton speak today of the impact of the closing of Discovery Islands on the salmon stocks in terms of her observations that they were healthier. I'm wondering if you could share your assessment, or if you have an assessment. We'll then transition to your answer, and then to Ms. May.

[Robert Chamberlin]

Is that directed to me?

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Yes, sir.

[Robert Chamberlin]

The comments I would provide are based upon information that Alexandra Morton shared with me. I also speak with the leadership from my first nation, the Kwikwasut'inuxw Haxwa'mis, the 'Namgis First Nation and the Mamalilikulla. They are the ones who are doing this independent science of the Broughton Archipelago. What I'm learning and hearing from there is not very good in terms of defending the industry. We are learning that the concerns we have are indeed valid.

We are learning the path forward to protect wild salmon, and the removal of fish farms is the appropriate path. It's one that.... It's an occurrence that happens, as Alexandra Morton mentioned earlier, referring to choke points. Certainly, Okisollo is one of those places, and it's just the wrong place for a fish farm. In British Columbia, in regard to wild salmon, there is no right place. It's time to meaningfully transition this industry to land-based closed-containment.

I can tell you, and I want you all to know, I speak with first nations from across British Columbia that are very keen and interested in land-based closed-containment. This is the path where we're going.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you very much.