Fisheries Committee on June 9th, 2022

[Dave Brown]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Hopefully in the questioning part, you'll be able to get the rest of your statement out, or any thoughts.

We go now to Mr. Bos for five minutes or less, please.

[Christopher J. Bos, President, South Vancouver Island Anglers Coalition]

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the standing committee.

I have lived in Victoria, B.C., for the past 22 years, with closeness to the ocean and excellent angling opportunities being significant factors in my motivation to live there.

I am the Victoria committee chair for the sport fishing advisory board and have held positions at all levels in the process during my 19 years of involvement. I am also the past-president of the Victoria Fish and Game Protective Association and served as fisheries committee chair for the B.C. Wildlife Federation. In addition, I am currently a director of the Public Fishery Alliance. Today I appear before you as the president of South Vancouver Island Anglers Coalition.

I bring forward two significant concerns.

The first is the lack of sufficient support for the strategic salmon enhancement in the Pacific region. For the past six years, the South Vancouver Island Anglers Coalition has served as the administrator and coordinating organization for an important and successful citizen-driven, volunteer-operated and community-based chinook enhancement initiative in Sooke, B.C.

Since its inception, the program has raised and released 3.5 million healthy chinook smolts into the Sooke Basin—all with private money. The purpose of the project is to increase the abundance of returning large adult chinook salmon to provide additional preferred prey for the endangered southern resident killer whales at key pre-winter feeding time. Added benefits include increased natural spawners in the Sooke River; first nations' food, social and ceremonial chinook harvest opportunities; as well as great angling for chinook between July and early September in the Juan de Fuca Strait each year. The Sooke chinook enhancement initiative is eminently scalable and can easily be successful in other locations.

This is especially disappointing as historic pen programs were operated at the same sites. Additionally, several first nations and local stakeholders were strongly supportive and wish to collaborate on these potential programs being restarted. In essence, the department has not allowed other projects like Sooke to continue.

Strategic enhancement and habitat restoration are good examples of how to give endangered stocks a chance. By introducing mark-selective fisheries, the public fishery can survive while endangered stocks recover. Micromanaging the public salmon fishery alone is basically optics and does not constitute a recovery plan. The salmon enhancement program in B.C. is held in high esteem by Canadians and has served its purpose very well over the past 40 years. It is well past time that SEP be given sufficient funds to update and improve to a world-class operation again.

DFO funding should also be provided for volunteer groups and associations that seek to enhance salmon populations where fisheries will benefit all Canadians, such as the Sooke chinook enhancement initiative. To address the crippling challenges posed by the declining Fraser stream-type chinook salmon, a new hatchery should be built on the upper Fraser, too.

The government has also bought and paid for two highly specialized automated mobile fish marking systems. As Canadian taxpayers' money supports the department's hatchery system in B.C., it would make far more sense that all hatchery fish be marked to afford fishing opportunity for Canadians who pay for them.

The second concern I bring to you today is the lack of access to viable chinook salmon harvest opportunities. Chinook salmon are, without doubt, the most important species to saltwater anglers in B.C. The vast majority fish in the ocean to catch salmon and take it home for the family table. Therefore, catch-and-release angling for chinook simply does not work.

This year, there is a significant abundance of chinook salmon in the waters around south Vancouver Island—perhaps the most seen by anglers in decades. Currently there are plentiful hatchery-marked chinook, mostly of U.S. origin, available, but anglers cannot keep any at all as they can only practice catch and release at this time.

Earlier this year, DFO fisheries managers would not entertain chinook fishing proposals from April and May. Also, two extremely low-risk, SFAB-supported chinook retention proposals were turned down by the minister.

Since April 2019, when Fisheries Minister Wilkinson implemented non-retention chinook salmon regulations for four key months of the year, participation in the fishery has collapsed. While on the face of it this helps struggling Fraser chinook stocks, this also harms many fisheries support businesses. Excessive fishing restrictions used as a lone recovery strategy have rarely ever worked.

Regrettably, the chinook regulation regime in 2019 closed an existing well-managed hybrid mark-selective fishery originally implemented in 2008, which ironically still meets and exceeds the baseline criteria for a DFO-approved mark-selective fishery to proceed, but there is not one.

The avid anglers program, which is the epitome of good science, is all but not working around south Vancouver Island because these anglers, not being able to keep a fish, are not going fishing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Bos, we're going to have to end it there. We've gone way over time.

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

[Martin Paish, Director, Business Development, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia]

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee.

Previously, Owen and I attempted to share our allotted time, but today we’ve opted to leave the opening statement to one of us—me, in this case. However, we are both prepared to answer questions, based on our different areas of expertise.

The SFI is a non-profit association that represents the interests of the 250,000 licensed tidal waters anglers in B.C., and the thousands of businesses and communities that support them. The sector produces $1.1 billion in annual sales and supports 9,000 jobs, which exist mainly in small coastal and riverside communities. The sport fishery is the single largest economic driver among all B.C. fisheries, although anglers harvest only 15% of the annual B.C. halibut catch and a similarly small portion of the salmon catch.

British Columbia is unique in Canada in having a vibrant marine recreational fishery that has existed for over 100 years. It's an integral part of the province’s coastal economy and cultural traditions. Because of this, having participants in tidal waters recreational fisheries serve as citizen scientists to generate data—which informs the management of sustainable fisheries—is a concept fully supported by the angling community.

In collaboration with DFO science and stock assessment staff, the SFI plays an active role in supporting citizen science by assisting in the coordination of catch monitoring, as well as data collection initiatives like the avid anglers program, and guide and lodge logbook programs. Further, the SFI has created a mobile app, FishingBC, which is standing by to allow anglers and guides to submit catch in real time. We are also exploring the feasibility of video monitoring of guided boats.

Volunteer-driven citizen science fishery sampling is a key component for DFO to assess recreational fishery impacts and adjust fisheries to improve sustainability. As an example of the significance of these contributions, 50% of the biological samples collected since 2014—over 42,000 in eight years—were collected by anglers. Given the quality and quantity of the information gathered, and the versatility of the data collection approach, bio samples—which include DNA, scale and otolith samples—must surely represent the future of modern stock assessment in B.C.

Since 2019, in times and areas where chinook non-retention was initiated by DFO, almost 100% of the released fish samples came from volunteer anglers. In periods and areas where DFO doesn’t have a budget for monitors on the docks, citizen science volunteers are relied upon for sampling. Without these volunteer efforts, DFO would have no basis for measuring fishery impacts or understanding the migration behaviour of salmon in these areas and times. As fisheries move toward mark-selective fisheries, the use of volunteers for the sampling of released wild chinook will be an increasingly important element in helping to determine the sustainability of the approach and in assessing conservation benefits.

To give you a sense of participation, consider that over 600 volunteers have been actively sampling in southern B.C. recreational fisheries for more than 15 years. Many of these volunteers are also involved in stewardship and enhancement initiatives. These individuals are part of an army of volunteers, all along the coast and rivers, who generously give their time and contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to stewardship activities by fundraising for fishing tournaments and events.

In recognition of the importance of these programs, DFO should ensure that appropriate levels of funding and support are provided to the volunteers, and that the data they generate is used to the best extent possible, in order to inform decisions related to sustainable fisheries. The current level of support and recognition for this work is limited, relative to the benefit DFO receives from the program. It does not reflect the hundreds of thousands of dollars DFO saves annually by using volunteers.

There should be an understanding that DFO is making fishery-related decisions based on the best science available, or a concise rationale should be supplied when decisions reflect something else. Citizen science volunteers are typically well versed in fishery management issues, know when their work is ignored and should be provided a complete explanation as to why a decision does not reflect science, when this occurs. The recent and highly precautionary chinook retention proposals put forward by the SFAB perfectly exemplify this issue. These data-driven proposals were carefully designed to avoid stocks of concern and passed DFO’s evaluation process as posing minimal risk, yet without any formal, written explanation from DFO, many of these proposals were not implemented.

Finally, while it's a social science rather than a resource science, economics should play a larger role in DFO decision-making than it currently does. Recreational fishery management decisions that will result in socio-economic impacts should include thorough impact assessments to fully understand their social, cultural and blue economy implications.

To do that, current and region-specific data is needed but does not exist. Statistics cited earlier are from 2016. Unfortunately, these are the most current ones available. Due to significant and recent changes to the recreational fisheries and, therefore, to the economy and social fabric of small coastal communities that depend on this activity, regular evaluation of socio-economic values should occur.

At a minimum, the national recreational fishing survey—previously on a five-year cycle—or some form of similar DFO-led program should resume at once.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide these remarks. We look forward to further questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

To finish off with opening statements, we'll go to Mr. Lanteigne.

[Jean Lanteigne, Director General, Fédération régionale acadienne des pêcheurs professionnels]

Good morning.

I have been the director general of the Fédération régionale acadienne des pêcheurs professionnels, FRAPP, for 15 years. Several of you have heard me testify before this committee on a number of occasions.

Fisheries are definitely an area where the concept of sustainable development takes on its full significance. Of course, we will talk about sustainable fishing. In that context, marine science plays a crucial role, and it is easy to understand why.

I don't want to overwhelm you with numbers and statistics, but to illustrate the situation properly, I will provide you with the following information. According to data from Fisheries and Oceans Canada collected by the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters, from 2009 to 2019, the value of seafood products exported by the four Atlantic Canadian provinces went from $2.8 billion to $5.3 billion, for a phenomenal increase of 87% in constant dollars. That is one of the highest increases among all of the country's economic activities, if not the highest.

I had the pleasure to listen to the testimony of other people who testified before you. While I agree on most of the elements raised, I would say, using a very common expression, that the fishing industry is all over the map. I will list a few files currently on the table: habitat, endangered species, marine protected areas, right whales, review of the precautionary approach, blue economy strategy. Those issues are addressed in such disorderly fashion that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Moreover, climate change must be added to this, as well as market requirements, traceability requirements, and the list goes on. What are we to do in this context? If I understand correctly, that is the question your committee is asking. Let's have a closer look at it.

The one and only scientific survey done with a trawler in the gulf takes place in the summer. According to that survey, redfish accounts for nearly 90% of all species in trawler hauls. That very important factor should sound the alarm bells across the department. In reality, very little is being done about it. A bit of work is being done by the Maurice‑Lamontagne Institute to try to learn more about redfish diet and a few other elements, but that's all. However, using that factor among others, the department reduced shrimp quotas in the gulf while not providing any support or compensation measures for that industry.

It is clear to us that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans must immediately set up work teams to measure the impact of the arrival of such a large redfish biomass in the gulf.

We also feel that this survey is not enough. More must be done and, more importantly, during every season and not only in the summer. That brings up the aspect of cost arising from that the work. Our response is that the model must be rethought by going off the beaten path.

In 2018, the Association des capitaines-propriétaires de la Gaspésie and the FRAPP presented to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans the concept of fishermen-observers who, in collaboration with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, would be allowed to gather all kinds of data and information on species in the gulf. Having not been considered in collaboration with fisher associations, that idea did not get the attention of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Yet we feel that this concept is even more important today than it was in 2018.

Here is what our associations at the FRAPP are telling us.

First, we must act quickly, as fisheries are at risk, including shrimp fisheries.

We also need more transparency from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Decisions made behind closed doors with major impacts on our communities no longer make sense in 2022.

In addition, stock assessment processes must be more in‑depth and be based on more information.

Advisory committees' mandates must also be reviewed and improved, so that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would be accountable to those committees for its decisions.

Moreover, all the fishing sector and industry stakeholders must be mobilized by holding major conferences in the Atlantic and in the Pacific, by dividing sectors in two parts: coastal fisheries on one side and mid-shore and offshore fisheries on the other. The conferences should become the Canadian forum of the fisheries and marine resources sector, and they should be held ad hoc, at a yet-to-be-defined frequency, either every two years or every three years.

It should also be mandatory to consider socioeconomic factors in decisions made by the department, and not only when it suits some.

Finally, in 2010, the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters managed to get funding under a program of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. That helped create the Canadian Fisheries Research Network, which operated for five years. The network brought together university researchers, industry stakeholders, as well as Department of Fisheries and Oceans authorities. Unfortunately, once the funding ran out, that wonderful project bringing together those three important sectors had to cease operations. We recommend that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans work with the Canadian Council of Professional Fish Harvesters to bring back that model by incorporating the entire socioeconomic aspect as requested by many of us.

Thank you very much for listening to me.

I know that my comments will raise many questions. It will be our pleasure to answer them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Lanteigne.

We have time, I think, for one round of six-minute questions before the actual vote is to take place.

All I will say is that, when the vote is ready and people get it done, if you're on Zoom, give me a thumbs-up that you've done it. Also, if you're in the House, perhaps somebody can let me know that everybody has voted, because we will need unanimous consent to start up the FOPO study.

Mr. Arnold, we'll go over to you for six minutes or less, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses. I wish we had more time, but with seven of you squeezed into one meeting, it's quite tight.

I'll start first with Mr. Paish and Mr. Mallet, if I could. Does DFO provide your organizations with info on what science the department is going to be undertaking and the eventual purpose of that science?

Mr. Mallet, you're first.

[Martin Mallet]

Typically, our relationship with the DFO science region of the gulf has been good, so we do have a good general update or feel for where the science is going year after year, but it's a relationship that depends on the science team and the actual species that are being studied. In terms of our relationship on lobster, it has been excellent, for instance, but in terms of some of our pelagic species, it has been more of a challenge. We're working on it as we speak.

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

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Paish.

[Martin Paish]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

My response would be similar to Mr. Mallet's, in that it really is dependent upon species and how current the issue is that we're dealing with.

DFO does have the ability to work collaboratively with us in terms of data collection in particular, as we talked about earlier, but some of the more stock-specific science.... I would use southern resident killer whales as a great example. That is an opportunity where there isn't sufficient science there to make the appropriate decisions and, therefore, some of the decisions that are made are not particularly science driven. I would use the recent closure at the mouth of the Fraser River as a very perfect example of that.

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

Thank you.

Are you able to suggest where those science gaps need to be filled? Are those suggestions followed up on or do they hit a brick wall?

[Martin Paish]

We're currently trying to do that on our visit to Ottawa on this particular trip, including the specific example that I raised with you.

The answer is, yes, we are able to communicate with DFO in terms of what we feel are priorities for research, and the answer is that not particularly often does the advice we offer get acted upon.

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

Thank you.

Because you're on the west coast—and possibly Mr. Brown and Mr. Bos may be able to add a bit as well—how would you describe the interaction with interior first nations and interior stakeholders that also have an interest in salmon and steelhead, which must first survive the marine and coastal risks that they see?

Go ahead, Owen.

[Owen Bird, Executive Director, Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia]

Thanks, Mr. Arnold.

I would suggest that it's quite variable depending on the particular issue and the discussion at hand and on the first nation. It's a challenge in consistency of communication, and certainly if it's coordinated with DFO it's even more challenging, because there are limited opportunities for first nations and the sport fishing communities sector to meet together as coordinated by DFO.

It's challenging, and I can't give you a consistent answer about how that goes.

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

Okay.

Mr. Brown, would you have some comments on this? How is the sharing of information—the coordination between organizations on the coast and inland—facilitated and does DFO have a positive or negative effect on that?

[Dave Brown]

I don't feel that DFO does incentivize or create opportunities to collaborate or communicate on these issues. I want to emphasize that the biggest thing I think that all groups would like to see is the removal of gillnets from the Fraser River, which have severe impacts on both salmon and steelhead migrating back to the upper Fraser, especially for steelhead in the Thompson and Chilcotin watersheds.

A move to incentivize all fishers who want to capture fish in river would be to have fish traps. There is that technology out there, but it's not moving quickly enough. I think that's the biggest thing that needs to happen.

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

Thank you.

I'll go Back to Mr. Paish and Mr. Bird.

You mentioned that the data on the value of recreational fisheries is outdated. That was regularly updated, I take it, in the past. Is that something that DFO—or possibly finance—really needs to look at, to see how much of an impact it has had on coastal communities and businesses in those communities?

[Martin Paish]

Thank you very much for that question.

It's our strong belief that, due to the economic power of our fishery and its incredibly positive impacts—particularly in smaller coastal communities—current accurate, useable, cultural impact and social impact statements should be part of the decision-making process as it relates to fisheries management decisions.

We've been asking for this for many years. It's our current understanding that this is sort of a shared responsibility between the provinces and the federal government. We believe that the federal government manages fisheries in British Columbia, tidal water fisheries. Therefore, making informed decisions that include cultural and socio-economic impacts is an important part of that process.

Not enough work is being done, Mr. Arnold. More needs to be done, and it needs to be updated.

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

Thank you very much.

That's my time, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

That's your time. Thank you very much, Mr. Arnold.

We'll take a quick recess now for people to go vote, and we'll start up again as soon as everyone lets me know in some manner that they've already submitted their vote. Once we get everybody, we'll start up again.

We're recessed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Has everybody on both sides voted?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

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