Evidence of meeting #23 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was wild.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
I was waiting for Madame Desbiens, but I will go now. Thank you, Chair.
I want to direct my next question to Ms. Sutcliffe.
One thing I was reflecting on is that we haven't spoken at length around the social science aspect of it—the economic and the social. I really appreciate your work in advocating for supporting communities and protecting the environment. I'm wondering if you could speak a little bit around what you feel is most essential for a transition plan for those who work on fish farms.
12:50 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, Ecotrust Canada
I think that's a very important question. Something that I feel very strongly about is the concept of a just transition and ensuring that workers in sectors such as this are not the ones bearing the brunt of the cost of these sorts of decisions, and certainly the numerous decisions that have led to this point.
Regardless of whether you do or don't support fish farms—I personally am in favour of moving to closed-containment farms—I think the idea of procedural fairness and a plan for transition that ensures these workers are not left high and dry is a critical one. Often it's the case with harvesters as well. These are people who live in small rural communities, often are not sustained off of super-high incomes, and likely have lower carbon footprints than you and I do. It's not fair to expect them to bear the full cost of sudden decisions that impact their livelihoods.
There's a lot of research on just transitions, and there are a lot of comments around opportunities for funding and retraining. However, realistically, in some of these communities, alternatives are few and far between. I think it takes a much more comprehensive approach and thinking about the economy as a whole.
That is partially why I'm so interested in socio-cultural science and thinking proactively at the outset about our decisions when it comes to use of our marine resources.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Ms. Barron.
There are about seven seconds left. If you get in a question, you won't have time for an answer.
We'll now go to Mr. Perkins for five minutes or less, please.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is for Ms. Morton.
Last week, Dr. Korman was before the committee and talked about his study on steelhead, and how the major way to manage and deal with the challenges with steelhead is the active management of pinnipeds, seals and sea lions, as the primary source and problem.
In your work beyond sea lice, have you looked at that area as part of the impact on the stock?
12:50 p.m.
Independent Scientist, As an Individual
I have not personally, but I have stayed up to date on the science.
One thing you need to really be careful of is that seals and sea lions, for example, eat an enormous amount of hake, and hake is a fish that preys on juvenile salmon. Once you start messing with the natural order of things.... We also have a growing transient or big killer whale population that are currently feasting on these pinnipeds, so it's a dangerous path.
As was mentioned earlier, if you have five stressors on your salmon and you can remove a couple of them, you are way out ahead. We know that wild salmon are not surviving exposure to salmon farms. They're not surviving it anywhere in the world. This is an impact that not only can be removed, but it can be put somewhere else. If you want to go and shoot all the pinnipeds, you may well unleash a greater problem, which are the hake and other species that are happy to prey on these juvenile salmon. It's a tricky road to walk.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I have one more question for you, Ms. Morton, and then I'll share the rest of my time with my colleague, Mr. Arnold.
I'm sure you're probably very much aware of the Washington state supreme court decision, which was unanimous. It basically said in a ruling that sea lice wasn't having an impact, and that the salinity of the water was different in Puget Sound, which caused more sea lice.
Is the salinity generally different in Puget Sound than around the B.C. coast? Are you aware of the decision?
12:50 p.m.
Independent Scientist, As an Individual
I'm aware of the decision, but sea lice are the problem here. We have the salinity that is perfect for sea lice. If you do go into the southern Puget Sound, closer to the rivers and further from the ocean, you do get lower salinities. For the farms that are in lower salinities in British Columbia the sea lice levels are lower. However, the majority of farms are in the perfect salinity, particularly with the lower rainfalls that we are getting during the summer. The salinity in the inlets is reaching ocean salinity of 30 parts per million, which is very beneficial to the reproduction of sea lice.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you for sharing your time.
I'll turn the question to Mr. Proboszcz.
The Cohen report recommendation number 71 stated,“The Department of Fisheries and Oceans should develop and carry out a research strategy to assess the cumulative effects of stressors on [wild] salmon and their habitats.”
In your opinion, has DFO fulfilled this recommendation?
12:55 p.m.
Senior Scientist, Watershed Watch Salmon Society
I don't think so. For example, in some of the research that I refer to in my document, there was an attempt to look at just the cumulative effects of one specific virus and sea lice. That work was conducted. It found significant interaction between those two pathogens and a significant effect on sockeye. However, DFO ignored that information and directed people away from that information, when it had its press conference. It concluded there was minimal risk of harm from salmon farms and all of the pathogens associated with them.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
In your opinion, does DFO have the data and science required to consider the cumulative effects of stressors on wild salmon health and to drive management of fisheries and fish habitat decisions?
12:55 p.m.
Senior Scientist, Watershed Watch Salmon Society
Cumulative effect is a very complicated thing to analyze and come to really strong conclusions, because it's so complicated. We're trying to assess all of the different factors that affect wild fish and how they interact. Once you get beyond one, two or three factors, it gets really complicated. The uncertainty gets higher and higher. It's a challenging problem to look at, but we start by looking at the interactions between just a few stressors.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Arnold.
Mr. Morrissey, there are a couple of minutes if you want to get in.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you very much. God bless you, Bobby.
I want to go back to Alex on something. I don't know if members of this committee would know the hard work that Alexandra Morton does. She made the point earlier about getting DFO staff into the operations, when a dying event is happening. I have a vague memory of this, so correct me if I'm wrong. I remember that the only way you got access to a salmon inside one of the fish pans in a toxic fish factory in the Broughton Archipelago was when an eagle grabbed a salmon. You were out and about and able to grab it, but for that, we wouldn't have evidence of the viruses in that fish.
Could you speak to that, Alex? Is that something that actually happened, or am I misremembering?
12:55 p.m.
Independent Scientist, As an Individual
That actually did happen. An eagle picked up a salmon but dropped it on the beach, and I was able to sample it. Furthermore, I had to go to the supermarkets and sushi restaurants to do the sampling.
The Broughton Archipelago transition initiative has gotten top scientists on the farms. We are going to know a lot more about the state of health of these farms, but it took first nations.... DFO refused to allow this to happen.
12:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
My point goes back to the idea of conflict of interest. What if...? I'm throwing this out, and I know I'm not supposed to do this, Mr. Chair, but if any witness waves at me, maybe we can see if anyone thinks this is a good idea.
Take aquaculture away from DFO and put it over in Agriculture and Agri-Food. Put DFO in charge of wild fishery, [Technical difficulty—Editor] coastal ecosystems and marine ecosystems in this country. Would taking aquaculture out of DFO's mandate be of any use in ending the conflict of interest?
Dr. Dadswell is waving at me. Go ahead,
12:55 p.m.
Retired Professor of Biology, Acadia University, As an Individual
That's what they do in many countries besides Canada. That's almost always the case in places like Europe, north Africa and in the east. Most of the people who look after aquaculture are in agriculture.
1 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Would you say that this would be a good idea for this committee to examine?
1 p.m.
Retired Professor of Biology, Acadia University, As an Individual
Yes it would be. I think it's an excellent idea to examine.
