Fisheries Committee on April 15th, 2026

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

So the department is already using the data.

What I want to know is how we can reduce the uncertainty. Do you have any other suggestions on this?

[Owen Bird]

There are circumstances, such as those in the sockeye fishery and the killer whale regulations, in which we are still waiting for fisheries management in order to know what those are going to be even for this year. Often, the reason given is that there's not enough data or estimate information available.

This will probably always be a problem, but there is no question that it could be improved. Also, there are times when they are clearly mired in political discussion before the management decisions are being made or communicated. It behooves all involved in DFO to try to work better at resolving those issues and recognizing that time is absolutely of the essence for recreational fisheries, more so than the commercial fisheries.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Deschênes.

I'm just looking at the time. We're going to have to shorten the time for the last two speakers. We'll have three and a half minutes for Mr. Small and then three and a half minutes for Mr. Klassen.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the witness testimony that we've heard so far today. It's wonderful. It's great work. Thanks for your contribution to what we're trying to do.

My first question is for Mr. Bird.

Mr. Bird, in the eighties, Canada had a fisheries and fishing industry with an output that was consistently in the top two of all the countries in the world. Now we're closer to number 30 in terms of our fisheries production. Norway is still way up there with a coastline that's one-eighth the length of ours.

Do you think the will exists in Ottawa to properly manage Canadian fisheries, to put us in our rightful place in the world in terms of the economic output from our fishing industry—and our sports fisheries? It's all fishery.

[Owen Bird]

I'd like to answer that.

As you said, from a recreational fishing perspective, you can absolutely talk about the eighties. Through the eighties and up to the nineties, the percentage of fish harvested by the recreational fishery in B.C.—I'll talk about salmon—was 4%. All the rest of it was commercially harvested, yet the recreational fishery, at its 4%, if you check for inflation, was still providing these kinds of social, cultural and economic benefits.

Some could argue that maybe even more was being contributed to B.C.'s economy then.

I for one would love to see the care and attention given to the recreational fishery to have it optimized and to take best advantage of the fish that are sustainably harvested.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

The fishery you're speaking of has the same economic value as the snow crab fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, which is the largest snow crab fishery in the world.

It's very important to us to try to get something done at this committee that can have a positive outcome for your people who depend on B.C. sports fisheries.

We can look at the decisions that are coming down. How would you compare the progress in the last 10 years versus the previous 10 years? We don't have a plan out yet for open net-pen transitioning. We're months behind in a lot of cases, so I'm told, with management plans. We're behind the optimum fishing seasons before the management plan comes down. If a government cared, would it be that slow?

[Owen Bird]

Yes, well, it's a question I can't answer. The decisions made are frustrating, as I said, for the recreational fishery. We have been able to maintain a degree of reliability and predictability, but as times change, it seems as though the decisions are mired in bureaucracy and not made as quickly as they should be or, it appears, could be made.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Small.

We're going to conclude this panel with Mr. Klassen for three and a half minutes.

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thanks so much. Thanks to the witnesses.

Further to the question that was put forward by Mr. Small, sometimes when people are waiting for a decision, they wonder when this decision is going to come. In hindsight, have the decisions made been the correct decisions, from your perspective?

[Owen Bird]

That's one of those questions where there is no one right answer. In some cases, certainly, and it's understood that some questions and some decisions require a considered and careful analysis.

I'll note that we're very pleased to see the announcement with regard to mass marking, which required a lot of analysis.

In regard to how decisions are being made on southern resident killer whales, we are not so pleased. The recreational community has been a very significant part of these discussions. Our view is that the decisions being made and regulations being imposed are not to the benefit to the southern resident killer whales, but are social in nature and are not fulfilling what they are intended to do.

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Okay, thank you.

Speaking of the mass marking, our government just announced the move to increase this.

How will this impact sport and recreational fishing and the tourism sector in B.C., from your perspective?

[Owen Bird]

We hope that it will do so positively and that mass marking will present more opportunity to consider new mark-selective fishing opportunities throughout the south coast, which will add to the opportunities elsewhere on the coast. Yes, that's a really good advancement.

There's an example. It's fantastic that this has come forward, but this has been on the table for somewhere in the neighbourhood of 17 years, and the details have not changed too much.

It's great that it's happened, but it's been too slow.

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

From your perspective, are there factors that are not being looked at when decisions are made but that should be incorporated into some of the decision-making processes?

[Owen Bird]

I would say it's more the opposite. Sometimes things are considered that really shouldn't be in the mix of consideration much more than things are being missed, I would say.

Specific examples are challenging. There are some examples of a mark-selective fishery that could occur in Howe Sound and factors that are related but were added after. It seems as though there have been issues conflated at times.

This is very complex, and there are lots of different circumstances, but I don't think things are missed too often other than stakeholder input. This could be significantly improved, not so much for fisheries but for MPAs, for example, in which fisheries are taking place.

The amount of communication with stakeholders and the appreciation for their ability to give input is not clear at all. This could be improved to the betterment of these processes, and there are fisheries examples, too. It would help with people approving of and being confident in the decisions made if they were known to be involved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Klassen.

This concludes our first panel. I want to thank our witnesses for being here in person and online. Your testimonies are going to be incredibly useful as we finalize our report and the recommendations flowing from that.

Thanks again for your contributions.

We are going to briefly suspend while we welcome our next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Colleagues, I call this meeting back to order.

I want to make a few comments for the benefit of our new witnesses before we get started.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking.

As for interpretation, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

With that, I'd like to welcome our new witnesses.

We have from the B.C. Wildlife Federation, Jesse Zeman, the executive director; from the Public Fishery Alliance, we have Dave Brown; and from the Sport Fishing Advisory Board, we have Michael Kelly, tourism operator.

With that, we are going to start with the witnesses' opening statements for five minutes or less, starting with Mr. Zeman.

[Jesse Zeman, Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation]

Good afternoon.

Today I want to speak about something that sounds technical but has very real consequences for people, communities and conservation—the timing of fisheries decisions, specifically when openings and closures are made, and the cost of getting those decisions wrong.

I'll use the 2025 Fraser River sockeye fishery as a case study. Let's start with the facts. Fraser sockeye returns are made up of four main runs. These are early Stuart, early, summer and late. In 2025 the pre-season forecast for all runs was approximately 2.9 million fish. What actually returned was nine million sockeye, a number more than three times higher than expected. This should have been great news. It was. It represented abundance we hadn't seen in years in real opportunity. However, that opportunity was not realized. Fisheries were strongly constrained by a low-abundance exploitation rate, commonly called the LAER, which was capped at 10% for late-run sockeye.

The escapement plan guiding those decisions was developed collaboratively by DFO and the Fraser Salmon Management Board and documented in the integrated fish management plan. The LAER was not applied across the full range of possible returns even when abundance exceeded the expected returns, as it did in 2025. Sockeye runs mix in time and space. When they do, management must protect the weakest stock. The principle is sound. However, in 2025, even with those constraints, there were clear low-risk fishing opportunities available in which summer fish could have been targeted and late fish could have been avoided.

On August 12, stakeholders, including the B.C. Wildlife Federation, put forward specific proposals that would target summer-run sockeye, minimize impacts on late-run stocks and generate tens of millions of dollars in economic activity. These were measured, evidence-based and aligned with conservation objectives. However, those opportunities were delayed. Despite written engagement, the in-river public fishery did not open until August 22. This is a critical window lost. Every day of delay can represent as much as $1 million in economic expenditures for this fishery. Sockeye fisheries are highly time-sensitive. As the season progresses, stock composition shifts and opportunities disappear.

At the same time, there were serious concerns about how decisions were being made. A long-serving member of the Fraser River panel, Mike Griswold, resigned after 40 years. He described the approach as unnecessarily restrictive, inconsistent with abundance and not responsive to real-time conditions. He noted that in previous years there would have been flexibility. Concerns were also raised internationally through the Pacific Salmon Commission from the United States.

There were issues with policy interpretation. In our experience, DFO delayed an opening for the public fishery through a misinterpretation of the salmon allocation policy. We were told that commercial and recreational fisheries must open at the same time. Additionally, first nations food, social and ceremonial priority allocation was conflated with a perception of exclusive access in time and space. Those misinterpretations created delay and uncertainty and limited responsible and sustainable fishing opportunities.

What were the outcomes? Out of a return of over nine million fish, approximately 1.39 million fish were harvested. Of these fish, only about 70,000 were harvested by the public fishery, for roughly 5% of the entire harvest, although the public fishery delivers the highest economic value. It is the most selective fishery. It is the only fishery with dedicated funding for fish conservation. Even with a limited opening, the public fishery generated over $1 million for fish conservation enhancement and restoration and close to $10 million in economic expenditures. Imagine what could have been achieved with timely decisions.

This brings us back to the core issue that timing is not administrative; timing is economic policy. It is conservation policy, and it directly affects every single British Columbian who cares about salmon. When decisions are delayed, businesses cannot plan, communities lose economic activity, Canadians lose their connection to salmon and conservation loses funding. In 2025 we had abundance but managed as though we had scarcity.

What are the lessons? First, in-season management must be responsive. Second, policy must be applied correctly. Third, decision-making must be transparent and evidence-based. Finally, delays have real costs—real dollars, real jobs and real conservation outcomes.

If we want sustainable fisheries in the future, we need more than good science. We need timely decisions, clear accountability, adherence to policy and a system that can respond to abundance, not just restrict it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to Mr. Brown for five minutes or less for opening statements.

[Dave Brown, Public Fishery Alliance]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I moved to Whistler in the 1990s, spending 10 years owning and operating Whistler Fishing Guides, building hands-on experience in the British Columbia recreational salmon fisheries. I've served on the Sport Fishing Advisory Board for over 25 years and currently chair the Squamish-Lillooet Sport Fishing Advisory Committee. In 2017, I received a National Recreational Fisheries Award from Dominic LeBlanc. I also volunteer as an avid angler, supporting citizen science.

A central issue I want to raise today is the loss of predictability in fisheries management. A stable recreational salmon fishery relies on certainty of opportunity well in advance of each season. Historically, DFO provided an annual salmon abundance forecast with predicted fishery opportunities before the new year. This allowed Canadian residents, international visitors, guides and angling-related businesses to plan their season, and it contributed to British Columbia's reputation as a premier sport fishing destination.

Today, key stock assessment data is not available until late March or early April, and the integrated fisheries management plan for southern B.C. is often not finalized until June. This makes it extremely difficult to plan operations or run viable guiding businesses, or for families and visitors to plan fishing trips. The result is lost bookings and reduced angling tourism revenue; difficulty for anglers to secure time off work for planned trips; disruptions to supply chains, including marinas, tackle manufacturers, retailers and marine services; reduced licence sales, impacting funding for salmon restoration, enhancement and research; economic loss to individuals, small businesses and families; and risk to the $1.25 billion in economic activity and the 9,100 jobs that depend on it.

These challenges are compounded by a lack of in-season flexibility. Even when returns exceed expectations, fisheries are not opened if they were not preauthorized. In 2023, more than 1 million chinook returned to the Fraser River, including approximately 625,000 of Thompson River origin. Despite this, no additional recreational opportunities were provided. This had a direct impact on in-river fisheries, affecting both community use and businesses that rely on the recreational fishing. This system is not adapting to real-time abundance.

Since 2019, Vancouver and the Sea to Sky region have faced some of the most restrictive chinook regulations on the B.C. coast. Fisheries have been effectively closed from April 1 to September 1 to protect Fraser River 5(2) chinook. This closure occurs during peak tourism, family vacation periods and key economic windows.

While anglers support conservation for stocks of concern, there is growing frustration that DFO has not opened targeted fisheries in which these stocks are not present in meaningful numbers. DFO's own science research shows that Howe Sound in April and May can support a sustainable fishery of chinook.

The 2024 reference fishery showed that, of 350 adult chinook that were sampled in Howe Sound, not a single fish was of stock of concern. The majority were hatchery fish intended for harvest. DFO's own assessment considers encountering a Fraser River chinook in Howe Sound during this time period to be rare. Despite this, Howe Sound remains closed, and anglers are being denied a sustainable fishery clearly supported by data.

Looking ahead to 2026, additional restrictions are being proposed to address Fraser River 5(2) chinook. These include extending the Vancouver area chinook closure from September 1 to September 11 and reducing the daily retention limit from two fish to one.

The Vancouver area is largely closed from April 1 to September 1 for chinook fishing. Extending this closure removes 11 days of prime fishing opportunity during a period that typically extends into early October. At the same time, retention limits are being reduced despite indications of stronger returns. This approach reflects increasingly fine-scale management decisions that reduce access without corresponding flexibility. These restrictions move beyond conservation and raise concerns about whether the recreational fishery remains viable for the public, guides and the broader tourism sector.

There is also serious concern about potential changes to the salmon allocation policy. If priority access for recreational fishers, particularly for coho and chinook, is reduced, the impacts will be significant. The recreational fishery supports 9,100 direct jobs and $1.25 billion in economic activity. These impacts extend beyond coastal communities to inland communities along major river systems throughout the province. Further reductions will curtail already limited access; reduce certainty for guides and businesses; impact manufacturers, tourism operators and service providers; and reduce participation in a fishery that supports sustainable use.

There is growing concern that fisheries are being managed to the point that they are no longer viable. We are seeing delayed timelines, limited in-season responsiveness and restrictions applied when localized data does not support them. At the same time, habitat capacity is being reduced, undermining long-term recovery efforts. Selective fishing technologies, particularly mass marking of hatchery salmon, have not been fully implemented despite being identified as a priority in DFO's 2001 policy for selective fishing in Canada's Pacific region. This limits opportunities to protect stocks of concern while allowing sustainable harvests.

We need a more balanced approach, one that protects vulnerable stocks while allowing access when data supports it. This includes early and more time-predictable planning, maintaining the existing salmon allocation policy, the ability to respond to in-season abundance, decisions grounded in localized data, maintaining fair access for the recreational sector, implementing mass marking of hatchery salmon and advancing selective fishing technologies. Without this balance, we risk losing not just fishing opportunities but the social and economic benefits tied to them across British Columbia.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Brown.

Next we are going to Mr. Kelly for five minutes of opening remarks.

[Michael Kelly, Member, Sport Fishing Advisory Board]

First of all, I'd like to thank the committee for inviting me here today.

My name is Michael Kelly. I'm the current south coast lead for the Sport Fishing Advisory Board. I've travelled here today from a small community on northern Vancouver Island called Port Hardy. Our little town is located near the tip of Vancouver Island and looks directly out on to Queen Charlotte Strait.

I'll give you a bit of my background. I have an academic background in environmental science, specifically in renewable resource management, with a keen interest in fisheries and wildlife biology. I've been a lifelong recreational angler. I was introduced to recreational fishing by my dad when I was young, and I've worked as an offshore fisheries observer employed in the field of catch monitoring on such fisheries as groundfish trawl, longline, salmon troll and gillnet, as well as shrimp beam trawl. My grandfather was a commercial fisherman on Lake Erie, and I worked as a commercial fisherman for the better part of 10 years in both salmon troll and the hook-and-line fisheries targeting bottom fish, such as halibut, black cod, rockfish and other groundfish species.

I currently work in the tourism industry as the owner of a company called Codfather Charters and at Tides and Tales Sport Fishing in Port Hardy. We currently operate five boats in and around the area. The heart of our season is from May through September. We do have work through the other months, but that's the heart of it. We also offer accommodation as part of our charters, as well as utilizing local hotels and restaurants. Between our charter boat operation and our accommodations, we directly employ seven to nine individuals each season, with roughly three to four of them working on and off throughout the winter, maintaining vessels and accommodation facilities.

As a service provider to the public or recreational fishery, preplanning is extremely important. We need to know when our season will start and finish so that we can commit to all the organizations and individuals who support our business, as well as those we offer our services to—our customers.

I've always viewed the tourism industry as it relates to the public fishery as a bicycle wheel. The supports provided by the many businesses in our community are all spokes in the wheel that help make it go round. What makes recreational fishery so strong from a socio-economic standpoint is that the many spokes include guides, lodges, value-added catch processing facilities, marine mechanics, tackle retailers, restaurants, airlines, shops and stores, to name a few. This is known as the multiplier effect, and the businesses that support and benefit from recreational fishing are vast and widespread; ultimately, they contribute to the substantial employment opportunities our community desperately needs and appreciates.

The need for stable, predictable access and opportunity is vital to the social and economic lifeline that is the public fishery in British Columbia. Visitors need to be confident that fishing opportunities will be available if they choose to plan and book a trip to a coastal community. Individuals need to book time off work, finalize travel plans, including airfares, lodging, etc., and not worry if the season will be open or has the potential to close prematurely, which could cause investment uncertainty.

On the topic of caps and quotas, they are simply not suited to or designed for recreational fisheries. They are designed for commercial fisheries. An example of this would be the experimental halibut licence program. While this program has seen very limited participation, it has highlighted the challenges associated with monitoring and has created a venue for unscrupulous participants to gain monetarily through undocumented catch.

Because of the vast coastline and many small, isolated communities in British Columbia, it is extremely challenging for the department, from a catch-monitoring and resource perspective, to account for catch in a timely fashion. This is highlighted in the regular recreational halibut fishery, for which the department's catch accounting is typically three months in arrears. This often causes the department to employ the precautionary principle, which results in early closures to the season. The sport fishing advisory board has always, from a historical perspective, worked with the department collaboratively to improve and enhance catch monitoring and is committed to continuing this work moving forward.

There has been discussion to say that caps and quotas would be suitable for other recreational fisheries such as salmon, but this demonstrates a lack of understanding of the intricacies of how these dynamic, mixed-stock fisheries work. Implementing caps and quotas for recreational salmon harvesting would require such a high degree of catch monitoring that the department would have to astronomically increase financial and human resources to avoid reliance on the precautionary principle, which, as we know, would often result in premature season closures and reduce confidence among visiting and resident anglers.

It is open and reliable access that the public fishery requires, implemented with daily and possession limits, which has been the historical method for managing recreational fisheries in British Columbia. The opening and closing of recreational harvesting seasons has utilized historical catch data, which provides an accurate estimate of anticipated catch.

With that said, I thank the committee again for inviting me to appear, and I look forward to answering your questions to the best of my ability.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

This concludes our opening remarks. We are going to jump right into the first six-minute round of questions with Mr. Arnold.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

I thank all three witnesses for being here. It's an important study.

I want to start out with Mr. Zeman, if I could.

You talked about the impact on the sockeye fishery last year. I believe you said that only 5% of the catch was.... Was that 5% of the total allowable catch or was that 5% of the return of the run?

A lot of people don't understand that there is an expected return and then there's an expected number that are allowed to be caught out of that, to allow the escape.

[Jesse Zeman]

There were approximately 1.39 million Fraser sockeye killed between all fisheries. They are test fisheries, Americans, commercial and FSC—all of those. There were 1.39 million fish. The public fishery accounted for 70,000, so that's 5% of the catch and less than 0.8% of the entire run.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

This is less than 1% of the entire return that came back. Thanks for clarifying that. This was my first piece about what impact the public fishery has.

Have the recreational or public fisheries ever been the cause of a fish stock becoming at-risk, on the west coast or in Canada?