Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue 10 - Evidence, November 3, 2005
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 3, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met this day at 10:50 a.m. to examine and report on issues relating to the federal government's new and evolving policy framework for managing Canada's fisheries and oceans.
Senator Gerald J. Comeau (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: This morning we are fortunate to have with us witnesses from British Columbia with whom we were not able to meet while we were in B.C. last week. We had wanted to hear their presentation because their expertise fits right in to our area of study, which is the impact of emerging policies on communities and people.
As I understand, the British Columbia Wildlife Federation is very close to the residents and communities in British Columbia and people's long-term interest in the common property fishery with respect to access for their members.
Mr. Tony Toth is Executive Director of the British Columbia Wildlife Federation, and Paul Rickard is Co-chair of the Tidal Waters Fisheries Committee.
I understand you have opening comments.
Tony Toth, Executive Director, British Columbia Wildlife Federation: Honourable senators, we are delighted to be here to continue our quest to find solutions.
Yesterday, before I got on the plane, I received a call from a CKNW reporter in Vancouver. Her question was: “Why are you interested in going to Ottawa? There is consultation after consultation and still we are consulting, so why are you going? Do you have any hopes from this meeting?” My answer to that, and to the committee, is that we need to consult. The British Columbia Wildlife Federation will continue to look for solutions until we find one that finally works to protect the fish resource in our province and in Canada overall. We are delighted to be able to continue on our quest.
The British Columbia Wildlife Federation today is part of a larger sector: the recreational fishing sector. The recreational fishing sector in British Columbia consists of 600,000 anglers. There are 350,000 anglers on the coast and 250,000 inland. That is quite a number of anglers. These people spend 2.5 million angler days out on the water and the rivers; as you can see, it is a busy and active body. Fishing is woven into the very fabric of our society in a recreational sense. It is not a pure pastime. The sector throws $1.2 billion of economic activity into the economy.
We are very healthful fishers with regard to the environment. Recreational fishers do not throw nets across a river or an isthmus. There is a significant amount of escapement. Therefore, we help to preserve threatened stocks.
As I said, recreation is absolutely woven into the fabric of B.C. society. I must tell you that the recreational sector in British Columbia is extremely worried. As the chairman said, we are close to the community; but you do not have to be close to the community to know that there is a boiling angst in British Columbia.
There is a town hall meeting of recreational fishing interests in Chilliwack. We were trying to ascertain the date. It might have already happened. This issue is roiling up through the community. There was a related issue in a place called Lone Bute, near Bella Coola. Lone Bute is not a big place. The event was sponsored by the regional B.C. Wildlife Federation. We put out 100 chairs, and I do not think Lone Bute has a population of 100. Two hundred fifty people showed up.
The concern of the recreational fishing community is great and it is rising. It is something to which we hope you will pay attention. It is certainly something to which we pay attention.
I will tell you a little about the British Columbia Wildlife Federation. We have 30,000 members in the province in 125 clubs. We are British Columbia's largest environmental organization. We are an organization of conservation- minded anglers, hunters and conservationists. We are absolutely community-driven. As a matter of fact, we invite community representatives to our conventions and we develop resolutions. The British Columbia Wildlife Federation is bound in terms of its policy positions by the resolutions passed by this community-based membership.
The British Columbia Wildlife Federation operates a number of programs. I will list some of them because it will help you to categorize us.
The Conservation and Outdoor Recreation Education Program teaches outdoor safety and survival, animal and fish identification, and hunting safety. We produce 5,000 graduates per year. We are the agent for that in the Province of British Columbia.
We operate the Becoming an Outdoors Woman Program, where we teach groups of women outdoor survival and other naturalist skills, including conservation. This is a very popular community-based program. We award scholarships for it. It is very well received and has good participation.
We operate a number of conservation and education programs, both ourselves and our clubs. For example, the Nicomekl Society in Langley, British Columbia, conducts a hatchery. They will tell you modestly that they will see 350,000 students and parents come through their hatchery as an educational activity. This is an absolutely wonderful outreach program into the community.
The Victoria Golden Rods and Reels Club is a group of retired people. They are busy mentoring students and young people in the community about fishing issues, and we are very proud of them.
Salmon Arm Club is probably the best example of on-the-ground, hard-core conservation. The year before last, when water levels were very low in the local river, the Salmon Arm Club gathered spawning salmon in big plastic bags, trudged one and a half kilometres to deeper water, and the salmon were able to complete their spawning. They carried some 1,500 salmon. This is the kind of on-the-ground community-based, hard-core conservation work that informs all our opinions.
In addition, we have established something called the British Columbia Conservation Foundation. This not-for- profit organization simply functions to conduct environmental projects and is the largest environmental project contractor in British Columbia. It runs a bear-aware program and a B.C. conservation program for which the British Columbia Wildlife Federation does the training.
This is by way of background to show that we bring you a great deal of expertise. Our committees collect all of this community-based information. We have committees on wildlife, parks, mining and, of course, fisheries, and we participate in policy advice at all levels of government.
We have our best expert with us today, Mr. Paul Rickard, Co-Chair of the B.C. Wildlife Federation Tidal Waters Fisheries Committee. He is a retired school principal, although he did not do a very good job of retiring. His fisheries interests take him away four or five days a week for meetings. His wife has told him in no uncertain terms that this is not the retirement they had planned.
He is a member of the Pacific Salmon Commission and the Sport Fishing Advisory Board executive. I am sure you will agree with me after his presentation that he is indeed an expert on communities, on fish issues and on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Paul Rickard, Co-Chair, Tidal Waters Fisheries Committee, British Columbia Wildlife Federation: Thank you, honourable senators, for the opportunity to address you today.
I am always aware of the definition of an expert as being someone who comes more than 50 miles from the site of the meeting. We definitely qualify in that regard. Other than that, I hesitate to accept that definition.
However, Mr. Toth has done a very good job of giving a little background on who we are and where we come from, which I hope to be able to further address with you today.
I am not sure if committee members have been given our speaking notes, but I carefully chose a cover photo that tried to say who we are. The smiles on the faces are a very important component of that, as is the fact that this is a family scene. Given my background, I have always looked for activities that provide good family opportunities to go out and be together. I think fishing is one of those opportunities that still exist for us, and we hope will exist into the future — hence, our cover photo.
As this is a time-driven presentation, I will provide a few specific examples in my statements. However, representatives from our group would be pleased to expand on these statements at any time, if you wish. The brief that we provided earlier and our speaking notes were also prepared by my co-chair, Mr. Wayne Harling, who has been a long-time member of the federation. I believe he made a presentation to the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in 1998, and he wanted me to say how much he enjoyed that experience and found it of value.
We believe the recreational anglers in our Pacific region do form a genuine community. I understand the focus of your committee was to look at the impacts on communities. We are a group of men, women and children who share common bonds and interests, and we form a strong part of the social fabric of the West Coast way of life.
It is a valuable service to the people of the Pacific region that you are looking into the effects of DFO policy on communities, and we want to support your work in any way we can. We believe, as outlined in our brief and speaking notes, that there are clear and observable impacts on recreational fishing in the Pacific region from the implementation of policy decisions by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Having had the opportunity to observe this committee's hearings in Vancouver on October 24 and having read your interim report with interest, we note that all of the presentations, save one, pertained to commercial fishing. This emphasis on the commercial sector is a concern for us in that the economic and social benefits derived from recreational fishing in the Pacific region — and particularly for coastal communities — far outweigh the economic benefits from the commercial sector.
It is our hope in this presentation to be able to have time to develop the following issues and concerns that are directly affecting the recreational angling community, particularly resident anglers.
The first is fisheries renewal, as it is termed by Fisheries and Oceans, and our concerns over what appears to be the privatization of Canada's fish resources. We would like to look at the nature and significance of recreational tidal waters fishing in B.C., both socially and economically, and the matters of opportunity and expectation for recreational anglers. Also, we would like to look at the repeated, ongoing and significant staff and budget cuts in DFO's Pacific region, and the implications of those reductions.
The fisheries renewal program contains fundamental and precedent-setting changes for all fisheries on the Pacific coast. Our greatest concern is that the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act could unduly restrict or even extinguish the public's right to fish some species in tidal waters. This right is already being impaired or ignored by the assignment of commercial individual transferable quotas — commonly referred to as ITQs — for halibut, sablefish and geoduck, with the right to sell or lease their quota, essentially privatizing a common property resource.
With respect to halibut, the minister of the day stated that if the Canadian public wanted more than 12 per cent of the combined commercial/recreational allowable catch, we would have to buy quota from the commercial sector — quota that was originally gifted unilaterally by DFO at no cost to the commercial licence holder and which we already own in common. DFO's intention, we believe, is to expand this program and to include other species harvested by the recreational fishing community. We attach to our main brief an outline by Dr. Gerry Kristiansen, which we believe well states our position on that privatization.
Our federation is not opposed to assigning quota to individual commercial fishing vessels to ensure a safer harvest and stable prices year round. What we object to is the de facto privatization of a common property resource, the windfall profits being made by original licence holders at public expense, and the potential for undue restrictions on recreational fishing as a result.
We propose that following conservation and First Nations priority access, consideration next be given to meeting the reasonable needs of the recreational sector, with the remaining total allowable catch then allocated to the commercial sector — by quota, if deemed desirable. This recommendation would, in effect, save harmless the public's access to their resource. One of the key concepts of our brief and of our thinking is to leave the recreational sector harmless from some of the quota and management decisions that are being made.
We would like to look also at the nature of the recreational fishing community. This is one of the most important messages that we can bring to bear. It is our hope that we can be successful in raising everyone's awareness of the size, magnitude and importance of the recreational sector in the Pacific region of Canada.
After having listened to one of the presentations on October 24 in Vancouver, we would like to clarify a couple of perceptions created by one presenter from the commercial troll on the West Coast of Vancouver Island — in particular, the concept that the recreational sector had taken away the troller's ability to earn a living, and that there was a separate commercial sport industry which was detrimental to all of our fishery.
For at least three decades — the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s — the recreational fishery harvested no more than 17 per cent of the combined commercial sport catch of coho salmon and 22 per cent of chinook. It was agreed by representatives from both sectors, sport and commercial, under an inter-sectoral allocation process presided over by Mr. Samuel Toy, that during periods of low abundance, in which we find ourselves in several instances now, the best use of these species was to allocate limited harvestable surpluses to the recreational sector.
During the 1990s, ongoing destruction of coho freshwater habitat, successive El Niño events, a changing climate regime resulting in poor ocean survival and, sanctioned by DFO, aggressive overfishing in those same areas all contributed to a decline in abundance that compelled DFO to belatedly impose significant catch reductions on both sectors to conserve the threatened chinook and coho stocks, with the greater impact being experienced by the commercial sector in accordance with the negotiated allocation policy.
In recent years, however, improved survival and area-specific openings have enabled the Area G troll fleet to increase their catch, particularly chinook, to the degree that the former ratio has been restored in the offshore areas. It is not the powerful sport fishing lobby that has caused Area G trollers to suffer some lean years recently. Rather, it is simply fewer fish, either of the targeted stock or a threatened stock harvested incidentally, for the reasons listed above.
There is a perception by many in the commercial sector that within DFO there are two sport fisheries — the independent resident angler and the commercial sport fishery. This is a term you may hear during the course of these proceedings, but, in fact, they are one and the same. Business interests are involved — fishing lodges, mom and pop fish camps and independent charter operations and guides — but these commercial operations receive no allocation of fish, nor should they. Their clients are subject to the same restrictions imposed upon the independent angler. Their function is solely to provide a fishing platform for those anglers who choose not to fish from their own vessel.
Owning my own boat, I would have to admit that I have, on occasion, hired guides simply to learn from them and to learn how to handle different waters. It has been a valuable experience, one that they provide to a number of recreational people in the Pacific region.
We would like to broaden the perspective about who is involved in the recreational community in British Columbia. Recently, I spoke to a number of people in fisheries management and with politicians who believe that all recreational fishing is centred on this concept of staying in lodges or floating fish camps and hiring guides. While this experience is enjoyable for those who can afford it, these anglers do not represent the majority of the recreational fishing community.
It is the average resident angler, with limited time and money for recreational activity of any kind, and who needs easy access a short distance from home, makes up the bulk of the recreational fishing community. His or her fishing trip is an activity in which the entire family can participate together, promoting enjoyment of the outdoors, and with the prospect of providing food for the family harvested freshly by their own hands. The value of this activity in a social sense should not be underestimated. This plays a major part in much of the Pacific region family activities.
I do not know if those of you who travelled to the West Coast had an opportunity to drive through local neighbourhoods and residential areas. In most cases, you would see a boat propped up against a fence, or the family driveway dominated by a boat while everyone else has to park elsewhere. It is evident everywhere and a pervasive part of our outdoor activity life.
In the Pacific region, There has been a significant decrease in tidal waters recreational licence sales, from 400,000 in 1994 to approximately 300,000 in recent years. This is largely due to the sharp decline in the availability of coho and chinook within the Strait of Georgia, which is that large body of the water separating Vancouver Island from the Lower Mainland, and the reduced opportunity to harvest other opportunities such as lingcod, prawns and crab, which form an increasingly important part of our ability to sport fish.
While it is extremely important to maintain our priority access to chinook and coho, as assured by the minister, it should be noted that these two species are not the sum total of the recreational fishery. Success of the recreational fishery, particularly in the Strait of Georgia, requires that the concept of priority access currently in place for the management of chinook and coho be extended to other species. It is essential that the Pacific fisheries reform take this concept forward in the development of recreational fisheries.
Last, but certainly not least, we would like to address the impacts of repeated, ongoing and significant budget cuts to the Pacific region of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In recent years, the DFO budget for the Pacific region has been cut significantly, which has affected a number of programs that have had a major impact on the recreational fishery. These include: The loss of the recreational fisheries division in the Pacific region; a drastically reduced stock assessment in a variety of areas and a variety of stocks; reduction in catch monitoring; a proposed further reduction to an already reduced Salmonid Enhancement Program that was, when it was instituted, a wise idea and a valuable program. To see the cuts that have gone on and the cuts that are proposed for the region is extremely disappointing.
In the last few years, we have seen major cuts to enforcement. Enforcement is important to a variety of aspects, as you can imagine, including keeping honest anglers honest. Habitat protection, enhancement and restoration are probably seeing some of the hardest and heaviest cuts of all the areas.
To expand a little on those, a few years ago, a staff of seven dealt exclusively with recreational fishing, including a division chief, an ombudsman, three full-time recreational fisheries coordinators and support staff. Today, we have one full-time regional coordinator, acting; three part-time area coordinators; and no designated support staff. Consequently, the perception of our sector's reduced importance has been reflected in the attitude of Pacific region staff toward the recreational fishery.
DFO's stock assessment program has been gutted and the lack of knowledge about some stocks has adversely affected some recreational opportunities.
A reduction in creel surveys has resulted in inadequate information about the recreational catch for several species. This has in turn resulted in fewer angling opportunities.
The Salmonid Enhancement Program was initially intended to double salmon production in the Pacific region. Because of habitat loss, particularly in the Strait of Georgia basin, maintaining this program at adequate funding levels is more important to the fishing community than ever. Recent cuts have already impacted hatchery production, and we are concerned that future cuts will severely impact recreational fishing opportunities for both coho and chinook.
Recent cuts to enforcement staff and funds have curtailed the ability to conduct patrols and investigations to curtail poaching and other illegal harvest activities. This is not just and only for the salmon species.
Elimination of habitat staff in recent years has dramatically reduced the ability of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to monitor and prevent accelerated fresh water and estuarine salmon habitat loss. I believe you heard a good presentation on that aspect from the David Suzuki Foundation as well. These cutbacks have now reached the point where DFO must rely on grants from outside agencies for basic habitat restoration.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to address your committee. We welcome additional opportunities to provide you with more detailed information on these and other issues pertaining to recreational fishing.
The Chairman: Thank you for that most comprehensive presentation. It will probably create the interest in our members to push through some of the items that you mentioned.
I would like to start off questions with the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Hubley from Prince Edward Island.
Senator Hubley: We certainly had a wonderful time on the West Coast. Our visit was very informative in respect to several areas of the fishing industry.
I looked at your cover photo very early on and thought it was just wonderful. It is a wonderful picture of families, maybe a grandfather and his grandson, being able to share in a fishery. From the young person's perspective in this picture, will he be able to fish in a recreational fishery when he is your age? I would like to juxtapose that query with information that we received from the native community where they feel that the quota system, the ITQs, if implemented, will work. I guess they call it a gift to the first generation of fishers. The second generation of fishers will not have that luxury. They will not be able to afford it. Their testimony was very compelling on that fact. Perhaps you would like to address both of those issues. First, how will the ITQ system affect your fishery, the recreational fishery; and, second, how will it affect the native community?
Mr. Rickard: Whether the young lad will have a future fishing for those salmon is probably why we are here and why I am attending four and five meetings a week and putting in the effort totally as a volunteer. Our organization is all volunteers. We care about what we do, which is why we are putting our time forward.
The future will be limited if we do not address habitat loss and habitat restoration. World renowned people spoke at an international salmon conference in Vancouver last year. The biggest danger to salmon and fish on the Pacific coast was simply put in one word: people. An increasing population puts pressures and demands on fresh water.
Our hope and wish is that DFO will look at a mandate of protecting habitat and the environment and preserving water quality and water flow. Our hope is that it will look at the impacts that we see through industrialization and housing development and loss of wetland and the damage that is still ongoing through the logging practices on some of the tributaries and watersheds of these rivers. For instance, in the southern part of Vancouver Island, which is the major population centre on the island with a population of approximately half a million people, we have one habitat river biologist. That is our habitat staff. Further cuts are planned by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans under a program called “The Modernization,” which I think is a wonderful euphemism for a systematic series of reductions in staff and the ability to look after the environment. We have strong concerns about those cuts and the impact they will have on the future of the fish resource and our youngsters' ability to fish.
The other thing that will impact on the youngsters' ability to fish in the future will be whether the recreational sector will be saved harmless in the assignment of quotas, should that be the route chosen by DFO. If we are reduced to a small percentage that seems to shrink, the opportunities will be very limited.
There is a system of quota management in the United States at present. In the beginning of the season, a computer modeling program determines how many individual salmon can be caught by recreational anglers. When that number is reached, the fishing season ends. It is possible to book a spot at a fishing camp in Washington State for August 20 and arrive there only to find out that the quota has been caught, that there is no further recreational opportunity and you have to go home. That is the kind of scenario that a very restricted percentage quota can bring about. That is one of the reasons we strongly believe that the sustainability of fish and the health of the run should be the number one priority.
The second priority, which we support fully, would be First Nations' access for food, social and ceremonial fish. Should there be fish sufficient in number after that, then we believe the recreational community, in conjunction with DFO, should have their needs assessed for that year. How many fish should be appropriate for that year. The remaining fish, should there be any, would be divided up among the commercial sector for commercial fishing. That would preserve the recreational opportunity well into the future for everyone.
Senator Hubley: Your priority in who should have access to the fishery would be what?
Mr. Toth: It would be conservation first, First Nations second, then the recreational fishery and then the commercial fishery.
When you asked if young people will have an opportunity to fish, another element to this problem is will the young people want to fish? Young people have a whole bunch of other options, and we need to promote recreational fishing to them. Otherwise, they will turn to computer games. This is a serious problem. If you are to have young people coming into the system to fish recreationally, they need to have opportunities, the costs have to be reduced, and the rules have to be simplified. They have to be mentored. They have to be given experiences. I know that to a certain extent young people in native communities get that support, but in other areas of British Columbia the answer is not so simple. The British Columbia government has actually realized the need to promote recreational fishing. We think that honourable senators should confirm the need to promote recreational fishing to young people. Why not use some of the $7 million from licence fees that now go into general revenue — even though we have a national surplus — and apply it to the promotion of recreational fishing?
You do not have to spend a lot of money to liven up the concept of recreational fishing among young people. As soon as they get their hook into the water and catch their first fish, the experience has them hooked for life. However, we have to do something to get them to that point.
My purpose in mentioning the Victoria Golden Rods and Reels was that there are 75 people in that club in Victoria who collectively have a couple thousand years of experience. They know fishing techniques. They know boating techniques. They know all about fish runs. They know about conservation. They have the time to mentor people, but we do not have the minimal funds to get those people out into the school system. That is one of the things that is really important for the province to start doing and for honourable senators to support as well.
The Chairman: It is a great idea to get the kids away from those little fish that appear on computer screens. I have one at home, as a matter of fact. There is a heck of a difference. The respect for the environment is so much different if can you get to see real fish rather than those in screen savers.
Mr. Rickard: We believe there is a significant amount of potential for recreational fishing to grow. Baby boomers are on the edge of retirement and many of us are looking forward to spending time with our grandchildren. We have the time, and we know from demographics that we have the financial ability to be able to do that. Given some support and promotion, the opportunity to have more young people involved is in front of us, if we can take advantage of it.
Senator St. Germain: I am quite familiar with your organization. One of your former colleagues and I go back a long time.
My questions are somewhat more controversial. First, I wanted to ask about your position on the Aboriginal commercial fishery as it exists on the Fraser. It has created a significant amount of controversy on the West Coast by virtue of its nature, not only with the commercial fishery and the recreational fishery, but Aboriginals themselves who are being impacted. Second, what is your view on the impact of fish farming and aquaculture? These are two areas of great controversy. Do you have a position as an organization on these two controversial issues?
Mr. Toth: On the issue of Aboriginal and commercial fisheries, the senator put us through our paces as to our priorities: conservation first, First Nations fisheries second, recreational fisheries third, commercial fishery afterwards. The key here is that the commercial fishery is after all the other three. If there is an appropriate allocation to each sector, then it is a matter of proper enforcement to ensure that each sector harvests its allowable catch and only its allowable catch. Failure to enforce that allocation is a failure of fishery management. It is that simple. I do not think the native commercial fishery ought to be the issue. The commercial fishery ought to be the issue in that scenario.
The second question was about fish farming. You may not have seen it, but we wrote a letter to both the federal and provincial systems just three or four weeks ago wherein we strongly advocated that collectively we look at the feasibility of closed pen aquaculture because we no longer think that open pen aquaculture works.
The science is coming out to show that it is creating more problems than ecology can handle. We strongly suggest that the feasibility of closed pen aquaculture be investigated on our coast as soon as possible, and we are fully prepared to assist in developing such a study.
Senator St. Germain: There is the Salmonid Enhancement Program. There is a foundation on the West Coast that was headed up by George Hungerford; is it still alive?
Mr. Rickard: I cannot tell you; I do not know the gentleman.
Senator St. Germain: I believe this was a government-inspired organization.
Mr. Rickard: There is a Pacific foundation under the guidance of Mr. Paul Kariya, which is funded in small part by a salmon stamp that you purchase for your licence. They then seek other funds through community fundraising. They entertain grant proposals from anywhere in the community, and grants are awarded based on the value of the proposal.
Senator St. Germain: I was at a fishing lodge this summer and was impressed by the enforcement and the respect that this particular lodge had for catch limits. There was no fooling around as far as size of fish. That is encouraging, but I thought there were a lot more people. Is somebody checking on the fishing grounds? For instance, is there enforcement up in the Queen Charlotte Islands and on the west coast of Vancouver Island?
Mr. Rickard: The short answer is yes.
If I may just go back and talk a little bit about the First Nations fishery, we are strong supporters of First Nations' fishing rights for food, social and ceremonial purposes. We believe strongly in their rights to harvest those fish, which is well established in law now.
Senator St. Germain: I do not think that is the issue though. The real issue is the commercial aspect, sir.
Mr. Rickard: I thought I would work my way down to that issue. We would like to see recreational access and a recreational allowable catch. We would like to see the First Nations' commercial fishery operate exactly as it is phrased, as a commercial fishery.
We have been assured so far through discussions with some of the treaty negotiators that this is their intention. It is their intention to acquire fishing licences — willing buyer, willing seller — and that those licences would then be part of the First Nations' treaty settlements. They would fish those licences, as would any commercial fisherman on the coast. We advocate a fair, equal opportunity commercial fishery for those people holding commercial licences.
With regard to salmon farming, there is a lot of evidence out there to support the move to closed containment fish farming, which we believe is financially viable. That is different than requiring them to be on land. These fish farms can be in water, but the technology exists for them to be totally enclosed, treating the water used and so on.
It is interesting, and we have yet to get a good answer to this question, but DFO wisely manages resources by what is called a risk averse policy. If it looks like there is a risk, in order to make sure the stocks are safe, they will make a decision that a fishery will not happen or that a restricted fishery will happen.
With regard to fish farming, it is our opinion from what we have seen that this seems to be the opposite. Instead of having to prove that there is no damage to the environment or no danger to other fish stocks, the community is put in the position of having to prove that these operations do cause harm. Where we cannot prove that they cause harm, the activity continues. It seems to be a reversal of an existing policy, from our perspective, which is worthy of note.
Mr. Toth: It is interesting that you identified the activities of a lodge and its clients. You are right; they are fully guilty of responsible behaviour, which is exactly what we would like to encourage. The B.C. Wildlife Federation, as I mentioned earlier, conducts the Conservation Outdoor Recreation Education Program, and there are two chapters on ethics. Each year we teach every one of those 5,000 graduates to be responsible in the way that they fish and hunt. It is drummed into them as part of fishing education and promotion, which I spoke of earlier. The more we do that, the more the issue of self-enforcement will pervade throughout our society, and the less we will have to spend on police enforcement.
Senator Meighen: I saw myself in that picture that you exhibited — hopefully, the young person rather than the older one, but that may be stretching it a bit.
I have been a very enthusiastic recreational fisher for all my years. I will fish for anything that swims. However, I have a number of short questions, probably for my own edification more than anything else.
I am sorry to read in your brief that you are facing the same reduced DFO activity on the West Coast that bedevils us on the East Coast — fewer resources, fewer scientists and staff, less monitoring, et cetera. I do not know why DFO is seemingly the subject of more cuts than any department other than the military. It is a shame, and I hope we can do something to turn it around.
I did not understand the reference to “closed pen.” I realize that a land-based aquaculture operation would probably be ideal, but it would be hard, realistically speaking, to get there in a short time.
As I understand, there is a total recycling of the water and discharges within the pen. Is the same as on the East Coast, with no requirement for double netting?
Mr. Toth: Double netting leaves huge spots for particles and lice to go through; closed-pen aquaculture at least filters some of that out.
Senator Meighen: What is your situation now?
Mr. Toth: It is open-pen aquaculture, aggregation of lice. The way those fish are situated at the mouths of rivers means that the lice live longer and multiply more vigorously. It is a real problem.
Senator Meighen: It sounds very familiar. Is there any regulation as to the number of pens in any given area?
Mr. Rickard: To my knowledge, no.
Senator Meighen: Is that a problem for you?
Mr. Rickard: We believe — and to our knowledge, it has not been proven one way or the other — that some extremely high concentrations in narrow channels create a serious problem. A lot of the young fish, which are known as smolts when they swim out of the river, must migrate and navigate their way past these large concentrations of fish farms. We believe that is where the difficulty lies.
The potential for the transfer of lice and disease increases when you have that kind of concentration. As far as I know, the only limiting factor to where the farms are located and how many are located in a particular area depends upon DFO doing an environmental impact study and deciding whether the environment can handle those operations. I do not think it is a specific-number kind of operation.
Senator Meighen: Even if DFO did such a study, are you satisfied that they would have the legal authority to limit the number of pens?
Mr. Rickard: That one is outside my area of expertise.
Senator Meighen: Is there any independent verification of catches? Senator St. Germain referred to great conservation practices, which I have also experienced in British Columbia lodges. Is there any verification of the other fishery sectors? For example, is there any verification of the native or non-native commercial fishery?
Mr. Rickard: There is a high degree of monitoring of the non-native commercial fishery. They have to pay for on- board monitors. They must turn in sales slips when they have sold them. They must do what is called “hailing in” at the end of the day and let a fishery manager know how many fish they caught and how long they fished. I would suggest that is a high degree of catch monitoring for that sector.
For First Nations' catches, I would suggest there is, perhaps, a less rigorous catch monitoring, although there is monitoring. The First Nations themselves often provide data on their catches. There is definitely a form of catch monitoring going on.
Senator Meighen: In response to Senator Hubley you outlined the priorities of access. Is that not the situation as it now exists? I realize that you changed where the native commercial fishery sits at the present time, but the recreational fishery gets priority of access now, does it not, after conservation and First Nations?
Mr. Rickard: Only in two circumstances, which are chinook salmon and coho salmon. Those are the only two species for which that is true.
Senator Meighen: Are you looking to expand it to other species?
Mr. Rickard: Absolutely. I would suggest that in the areas of highest population concentration, such as around Vancouver, the Lower Mainland, the East Coast and southern Vancouver Island, the ability to catch salmon is severely reduced because of stocks that are in difficulty and the low returning numbers of fish. Because those are wonderful, protected calm waters, many people would like to go out and have an opportunity to catch crabs or prawns or clams or, if we ever get to it — and that is another story — lingcod. Those other species are becoming of very large importance to the recreational sector, and there we are meeting some difficulties in terms of access.
Senator Meighen: DFO's discussion paper released in September of this year notes that it is premature to provide specific alternatives for consideration in the recreational fisheries. They have provided the alternatives for the commercial fishery, but not for the alternative fisheries. They justify their decision on the basis that discussions with recreational fishery representatives are just getting under way in earnest. Is that a fair comment from your perspective and, if so, why has the process taken so long?
Mr. Toth: There is no recreational fisheries division to speak of.
Senator Meighen: Meaning that there is no one for you to talk to.
Mr. Toth: That is right.
Mr. Rickard: To be fair, I would suggest that perhaps that is not an entirely accurate comment in the document. There have been ongoing discussions with various managers and with the regional director general about the needs of the recreational fishery. Our strong feeling is that perhaps we have been reduced in level of importance in the minds of those directors and regional director general. One of the concerns that brought us here today is that it appears that the needs of the commercial sector are foremost and uppermost in the minds of those people making the decisions. That is why you see us “relegated,” and I believe that is the correct term to use. The thought is, “We will get around to them; we want to deal with this part first.” We are trying to communicate our feeling of frustration. We are not sure why what we see as a large component of the fishing population in the Pacific region is receiving less importance than perhaps some of the other sectors. Therein lies our real concern.
Senator Meighen: It seems difficult to make the case that the recreational fishery is highly profitable to the government in an economic sense. It is a terrific generator of economic wealth, a fact that is not widely known and accepted.
Mr. Toth: You were saying that there has been downsizing on the East Coast and on the West Coast. One place there has not been much downsizing is in Ottawa. Mr. Rickard, do you have the sheet with you?
Mr. Rickard: There are eight assistant deputy ministers, 30 directors general and 100-plus directors heading up a workforce of somewhere around 1,300 people here in Ottawa.
Senator Meighen: Enough said. Thank you.
Senator Hubley: Just to clarify in my mind the licensing issue and your priority status, the recreational fishery includes both the commercial sport fishery and the independent sport fishery; in other words, you have a commercial aspect to your recreational fishery. However, you believe that this fact should not drop you down in priority to the next level; is that correct?
Mr. Toth: It is probably not feasible to drop us down.
Mr. Rickard: In fact, we do not refer to a separation of interests within our community because, in reality, the lodges and the guides are providing an opportunity for many people who may not be able to afford or want the hassle of owning a boat or who may not feel comfortable in challenging water conditions. They are really part of our community and just provide another way for that community to access the resource.
The Chairman: I want to come back to the matter of raising fish in a closed containment environment. In its 2001 report, this committee did in fact recommend to DFO that this issue should be reviewed. The report also identified that DFO might be in a conflict position because it is both the regulator of fish farms as well as the promoter of fish farming. Those two things did enter our minds at that time, as did the ever-present question of DFO budgets. These subject all went into the hopper at that time.
Senator Cowan: We had the West Coast Vancouver Island Aquatic Management Board appear before us. The board has been referred to by other witnesses who have appeared before the committee here in Ottawa and on the West Coast. On the face of it, the board seemed to be a community group that represented a wide range of interests that seemed to work well together. I was not clear whether the recreational fishery was part of that group or whether the board was simply a collection of commercial interests.
Mr. Rickard: The answer is yes, indeed the recreational community is represented on the board. Ms. Marilyn Murphy, who made a presentation to your committee in Vancouver, sits as the representative for the sport fishing community and takes an active role in the board.
Senator Cowan: It seemed to me to be a good model. It was working well and is something we should look at for possible application elsewhere on a wider geographic basis or in other fisheries. It was mentioned that the board was based upon programs that were developed in Alaska. Can you comment on the Alaskan programs and their applicability or non-applicability to our fisheries in Canada?
Mr. Rickard: I do not have a strong knowledge of the Alaska programs. I have noticed that they have been going through some rather significant difficulty of late over the assignment of quota regarding halibut. In assigning their quotas, they went so far as to allot a halibut quota to individual charter operations. Quite a controversy is now waging, I understand, because the popularity of recreational halibut fishing has increased. Many of these charter operations have now reached the limit of their quota and are looking to carry on the recreational opportunity and cannot. They have hit the wall imposed by the quota.
In terms of the West Coast Vancouver Island Aquatic Management Board, one of the good recommendations from Mr. Paul Sprout, DFO's Pacific region director general, is that he sees a need for the future fisheries to revolve around what are referred to as multi-sectoral groups meeting together. This would mean that the First Nations would sit down at the same table with the commercial fishermen, the recreational fishermen and, perhaps, people who identify themselves as conservationists — although we think we are conservationists as well — to reach consensus decisions on harvest, allocation and what is going on in that specific region.
That is a probably a very desirable way to go. However, as you can imagine, if you are going to go that way, it needs to be done carefully and with some skill. You do not just throw a group of people into a room and say, “Come up with a consensus and we will open the door when you can all agree on something.”
It is a worthwhile goal, but it should be approached incrementally. There should be skill-set training to enable people to reach consensus through that process. As a goal, I think it is an excellent one.
Senator Watt: I want to revisit what seems to be the central theme to the discussion, that is, the allowable catch or the allowable quota. As you mentioned, quotas should be determined from the perspective of conservation. If I understand correctly, you are highlighting the fact that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is starting to get away from its responsibilities. In other words, it is moving toward privatization and looking at the issue more from an economic point of view rather than as a conservation concern, something they should have. If the scales were to be tipped in that way, with privatization being factored in, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is still unclear as to how it will administer its responsibilities in regard to the regulations, which to me is unfair.
On top of that problem, you are saying that, “Our group is not even being thought about in terms of being able to receive an allowable catch or quota for our activities.” If I understand correctly, you would like the department to acknowledge that there is another way to view the situation other than from strictly an economic standpoint. There is the other side of the coin to be considered. I refer to the conservation aspect of the activities that you carry out. You have a commercial component built into your recreational activities.
Has anyone attempted to do an economic feasibility study comparing the economics of the industry to concerns over conservation? In highlighting your concerns you say that this is the one that the department is not looking at seriously. Am I capturing your concerns properly?
Mr. Toth: I think you are. If I hear you correctly, you are saying that DFO is under-resourcing its conservation mandate. If they were properly resourcing it, then our sector would be considered in all respects of the equation. Proper inventories would be taken. Overly conservative allocation decisions would not be taken because DFO would be better informed, which would be better for everyone else.
Once the available catch is identified, we think the priority should be conservation first; food, social and ceremonial purposes for the First Nations, or FSC; then the recreational sector followed by all the commercial sectors. That is how DFO should be prioritizing its allocations. It reflects the reality of the social fabric of British Columbia.
Senator Watt: Having been involved in negotiations with Aboriginal people and provincial and federal governments in that light, what we would normally end up with at the end of the day would be, first, conservation, followed by Aboriginals and the commercial fishery. The recreational fishery would be last. What you are saying is that this may have been done in the past, but the fact is that more and more people are being attracted to the recreational fishery, which has a commercial aspect built into it. It is an area that has economic potential and continues to grow. That is the message you are trying to put across.
Mr. Toth: Exactly.
Senator Watt: You want us as a committee to ensure that is taken into account by the department.
Mr. Toth: Absolutely.
Senator Watt: You would like to see that as part of our report.
Mr. Toth: It is not rocket science. The recreational sector produces $1.2 billion in economic activity in British Columbia. I am not sure what the other sectors produce, but it is a lot less.
Senator Watt: What about the isolated geographic area where the activity takes place? Recreational and commercial interests, the Aboriginals and conservation have to be taken into consideration. Recreational activities have commercial aspects built into them, versus total privatization, if it takes place. Has anyone studied that geographic area from an economic perspective? In your opinion, what is the picture like?
Mr. Rickard: Overall, depending upon whose report you read, recreational fishing in tidal waters produces somewhere between $700 million and $850 million. Commercial salmon fishing produces about $300 million, which is significantly less. We would prefer to talk about recreational fishing rather than break it up. With respect to recreational fishing in small coastal communities, the actual towns themselves, the economic impact is huge.
There is a small community called Port Renfrew near my home on the west coast of Vancouver Island. It was a logging town. Some 15 years ago there was only limited access by road. The logging camp closed down and the community prospects looked grim. Today, there are 22 full-time guides working out of that community. There is an income over five months of somewhere around $6 million to $7 million. Lodges and restaurants are being built in that community totally due to recreational fishing.
Senator Watt: Can you provide those numbers to the committee?
Mr. Rickard: Yes. If you can gain access to a report given in Vancouver on October 24 by the Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia, you will see that they have given an extremely detailed breakdown of communities in central Vancouver Island called Port Alberni, Ucluelet, Tofino and Bamfield, which are all located along a big inlet into the island. They break down all the monetary statistics in a detailed way, including motels, restaurants, guides, boat repair operations, et cetera. The total figure is surprising. Again, for those small communities, the recreational fishery has quite significantly turned them around.
Recreational fishing has become a significant component. I suspect that may have come through when you visited those communities and met with industry representatives. That is part of the report if you want to see the specific breakdown.
Senator Watt: That would be helpful to the committee.
Mr. Toth: Mr. Rickard emphasized the coastal communities. The exact same phenomenon is at play in non-coastal communities. Spences Bridge, for example, has no activity other than catch-and-release steelhead fishing in October. By shutting down the steelhead fishery or slowing it down over October, you would basically destroy the economy of Spences Bridge for the year. Thus, you have to be careful.
I would like to refer to a statement in your presentation. I have it here. You talk about access rights and entrenching recreational access rights on which a number of senators have come back to you for explanation. It says that if these access rights are guaranteed, there would be no need for us to oppose measures that the commercial sector might see as essential to its interests. I assume here that you are referring to the possibility of the introduction of ITQs; am I correct?
Mr. Rickard: Our federation is not in favour of individual transferable quotas. For some species of sedentary ground fish that do not move around a great deal and whose populations are fairly predicable, we would suggest that a quota-style fishery for management purposes would be quite beneficial in that regard. The halibut fleet is a good example. It has provided safer fishing for them. They are not feeling that they have to rush out no matter what the weather. It is a very predicable ground stock for salmon species that migrate in mixed stocks. The problem now for the commercial fishery is that not only do salmon species travel in mixed stock, but mixed in with those large stocks are stocks of strong concern for conservationists. It is very difficult to fish that large mash of fish without impacting on some of the species in need of conservation.
The Chairman: I was under the impression that if the legislation outlined conservation first; food, social and ceremonial purposes for Aboriginals second; and priority access to the recreational fishery third, you would not be concerned with what happened in the commercial sector in terms of ITQs; am I reading it wrong?
Mr. Rickard: No, you have it exactly correct. It is just that we do feel a little delicate about the concept of privatizing the fish resource that we see as common property.
The Chairman: That is where I was coming from. I did somewhat have it right, that what happened in the commercial sector, provided that priority access was guaranteed in legislation, you would be in favour of letting the chips fall where they may.
Mr. Rickard: Essentially, that is correct.
The Chairman: That is why I wanted to get it on the record. We do have the example of what happened in New Zealand whereby a fully privatized corporate fishery was implemented. Over time, the New Zealand corporations have footed more and more of the cost of the science, enforcement, monitoring and even the distribution among its members. Basically, the fishery is paid for and set by the corporate sector. Decisions are made in board rooms as to who can catch the fish and how the fish is caught. This means that their fisheries department sets the TAC and the corporate sector runs the show.
With that in mind, once the corporate sector is in a position to basically run the fishery, where does that, over the long haul, leave these young individuals who I see on the front of your brochure? Would the people in the boardrooms who make the corporate decisions have any place for the recreational sector? Information on the amount of each stock that is out there becomes a proprietary right. Essentially, if one company pays for the science, they will not want to make that information available to their competitors. The information is available, strictly and only, to the department setting the TACs.
As a matter of fact, we have seen examples in New Zealand whereby the corporate sector has sued the government — I do not know if they have been is successful — because the TACs were going down. In other words, if they owned the fishery, should they not be the ones who at the end of the day set the TACs?
If you were provided priority access in legislation, would you feel safe and would the legislation work if the corporate sector were to own the stocks that are out there? I know that is a long question, but we need to get into these things.
Mr. Toth: Let me give you a preliminary response. The total allowable catch would have to be defined in terms of the overall sustainability of the resource. That cannot be determined purely by corporate interests. Somehow or other, there must be scientific, community and other stakeholder involvement in the setting of the total allowable catch. I doubt that we would ever condone the handing over of a total, complete operation to the corporate sector.
The issue of stakeholder involvement, even in the capturing of information and their consolidation of information, would have to be provided for in any legislation so that we know that the information is not collated and utilized for purposes contrary to the public interest.
The Chairman: Yes, but if DFO can go ahead and implement ITQs without public input, community input or recreational input, as it is doing now as we speak, what makes you think that they will listen to you in the future as they “corporatize” the fishery? If they are doing it as we speak, what makes you so sure that they will do it in the future?
Mr. Toth: As Mr. Rickard said, we are not terribly happy about what they are doing as we speak. They should be consulting more with all of the sectors. That would not change under any other regime.
The Chairman: I know that only very recently has DFO even considered using the phrase “community involvement.” They would not do that until very recently. We as a committee insisted. We pushed and cajoled, and they have finally started to use the phrase in their own documents. For many years they saw the person who paid for the licence as the only stakeholder with any say in the allocation of fish. It was only through a great deal of effort that they finally agreed that stakeholders can be much more than just a licence holder. If you have faith in DFO being mindful of community and recreational interests, good luck.
Mr. Toth: Amongst ourselves we say that DFO is really in need of a culture change. In the corporate world, the way to effect culture change is to make it a management objective. A significant amount of effort is required to achieve a mindset change within the system, but that is certainly something that we think is necessary. It is heartening to know that you have had some impact on achieving something of a change in mindset. Otherwise, we would not be given as much of a hearing as we are being given today.
The Chairman: If you scratch hard and long enough at a scab, sometimes you find something underneath.
Mr. Toth: That is a great visual, senator.
The Chairman: I am being very visual right now. I mean no disrespect to the thousands of DFO officials who toil endlessly for their department, but there is a culture there that needs to be changed.
Mr. Rickard: There is a great deal of difference between consultation and informing. I would suggest that perhaps true consultation is some way down the road yet. Perhaps we find ourselves in a position where we are being informed about directions in which DFO plans to head. I believe that the concept of seeing our fish resources privatized is an important one to every Canadian. That is where we are looking for the help and support of the Senate and whomever else. When these amendments to the Fisheries Act are introduced in Parliament, as we are told they will be in November — and we have not been permitted to see the wording, simply where they intend for them to go — I hope that there is an awareness of the potential for a major shift for every Canadian. They may lose their right to fish or the common property ownership of a resource. Personally, that is a very important issue.
The Chairman: I invite you to look at the New Zealand model. It is worth reviewing. We have looked at it, but we wanted to study it more closely.
Mr. Rickard: It has its strengths, but some of the wording in one of its priority access clauses that has led to some grief and lawsuits. We believe that a made-in-Canada solution would be a good, but learning from other models such as that one would be an excellent thing to do.
The Chairman: It is good to look at the mistakes of others.
I am going to refer to excerpts from a DFO 2005 discussion paper. There are two sentences. The first one reads, “Under the present management system, the allocation of fish for recreational fishing purposes is not quantifiably defined in many fisheries management plans.” That is probably true. The second sentence states, “The recreational fishery is more dependent upon access to predicable, high quality fishing opportunities rather than a specific quantity of fish.” If I were an avid recreational fisher or angler, I might be concerned with that statement. Would you not?
Mr. Toth: It goes back to the issue that it is not easy to determine the allowable catch for the sector. Doing so requires more than minimal resources. That is what we are talking about — providing resources for a proper taking of inventory. That is not being done.
The sad thing is that $7 million of our licence fees go into general revenue rather than back into things like properly working out the quantified amount that the recreational sector needs.
The Chairman: When Pearse and McRae studied where the West Coast fishery should be going, did they consult with you?
Mr. Rickard: They consulted both with the B.C. Wildlife Federation and with the Sport Fishing Advisory Board. It is important to note in that document they produced, which I believe is 30-odd pages long, that one page mentions recreational fishing.
The Chairman: Were you happy with the paper that they produced? Did the final principles that they set forth, such as privatization and evergreen ITQs — in other words, the allocation of fish quotas in perpetuity to the corporate sector — reflect the kind of fishery that your federation would like to see?
Mr. Rickard: The only portion of their document that was part of our presentation and that we felt really onside with was their recommendation that priority access to chinook and coho salmon be continued for the recreational sector. Other than that, little of what we discussed and presented appeared in their document.
Mr. Toth: I did participate in a consultation on behalf of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. There is consultation and there is consultation. The consultation that we went through was very directed and specific. We were basically told that this is going to be done and that is going to be done, but aside from that, what do you have to say? It was not a real consultation.
The Chairman: That is the impression we have been getting for some time. In other words, the objective had been set. The report had almost been written; it was just a matter of going through the motions.
Mr. Toth: Well put.
Mr. Rickard: Many of us felt that way.
Senator St. Germain: Where are the Bob Wrights and the John Frasers on all this stuff, people who have been around this industry for 800 years? Mr. Wright is in the lodge business. Are they reacting?
I sit on this committee but am also Deputy Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, the scheduled meetings times of which sometimes conflict. This is why I was not able to participate in the recent Fisheries Committee trip to the West Coast. I was Prince George with the Aboriginal Committee. However, I did hear that this year the return was atrocious on the Skeena and the Nass Rivers. A negligible number of fish came back. Some of the Aboriginal leaders talked in the hearings and spoke privately to me about the small number of fish that returned to the Skeena this year. The Nass was not as affected.
It has to have some impact. It is scary to me, and to all the members of the committee and to you folks, that we have a situation where if this is put in the hands of private individuals without any supervision, we could have a real nightmare as far as the loss of a resource on the West Coast. The result could be something similar to what happened on the East Coast. Do you have any comment, Mr. Rickard?
Mr. Rickard: I do for sure. To be fair to DFO, I meet with many of the senior staff and have a lot of respect for many of them. I believe that much of what we see is procedure and policy being generated because of a lack of funds. They do not have the proper stock assessment information. They do not have a significant amount of time. They do not have the staff to conduct the studies that they would like to initiate.
They are trying to do something, in my opinion quickly and not necessarily in the best interests of everyone, but they are trying to do the best they can with woefully inadequate funding and abilities to react. I think they are trying to envision a quick fix that is cheap. This is an undercurrent that I hope this committee will review and make suggestions about afterwards.
Part of the difficulty they are facing is an increased need to do stock assessment and monitoring. Something is happening now that probably has not happened in the past 60 or 70 years. We are seeing a marked decline in the ability of the open ocean to supply the food and nutrients that support high survival rates for the fish.
Some stocks, strangely, are doing well. Other stocks are coming back dramatically reduced, and we cannot predict their numbers from year to year. The department needs to be able to respond to these variations in an environment of diminished resources.
If we are to have successful future management, people must respond more quickly. They need to be able to get better information more quickly. That is what will make a difference for all of the groups who want to access those stocks.
Senator St. Germain: There is not a socialist bone in my body, but in the same breath, if we do open the system up to the private sector, they will have to survive economically. That could be at the expense of the fish. I was told that some of the fish coming back are really thin.
Mr. Rickard: Yes.
Senator St. Germain: Physically, the fish are not in the shape they have been traditionally. As well, apparently some native bands were not even able to get enough fish for their food, social and ceremonial needs. That is how significant the drop-off has been.
I have one more quick question on the location of these fishing pens. You said the smolts that return have to go through lice-infested waters. When the fish farm licences were granted, were they granted by DFO or the province? My understanding is that if these pens were placed in certain little bays, they would not expose the wild species to anything in the areas where the fish travel normally. Is there anything to that view?
Mr. Rickard: Nothing is simple. The answer to that question is that because the fish farm operators are using open net pens, there is a tremendous amount of feed and fecal matter fallout through the mesh of the pens. If that matter is allowed to build up on the bottom, it becomes a breeding place for bacteria, which can completely smother and kill all of the natural bottom life. An attempt has been made not to locate the pens in bays but in areas of high tidal action where there is more dispersal of some of that material. I believe therein lies some of the difficulty because the high tidal current areas tend also to be major passageways.
When you look at a map of the geography of the area, many of the rivers and tributaries come in on long inlets, and these fish form a mass out through the inlets and channels. That is where they encounter a concentration of fish farms. The farms are situated for high nutrient flow of the water and to disperse the matter from the pens. That is a complicating factor and another reason why the solid rubber containment system is a better way to go.
Senator Watt: I will limit my questions to deal specifically with the problem of lice. In your area, the salmon come in from the ocean — from the salt water that is around Alaska and so on. When they come into the bays, they are usually carrying lice. When they get into the fresh water, the lice drop off.
Mr. Toth: Or they are carried part way up the river.
Mr. Rickard: The fresh water kills them eventually.
Senator Watt: The same thing happens in your area.
Mr. Rickard: Yes.
Senator Watt: In terms of the stock in captivity versus the wild stock, do you see a difference between the two?
Mr. Rickard: We are getting into the area now of opinion, where nothing is proven conclusively. With respect to the concept, what you say is essentially correct. The wild fish all naturally pick up sea lice as part of their growth. When they come into the mouth of the river, in the natural cycle of things, the fresh water kills the lice and they drop off. When the young smolts come out of the river and into the open ocean, no longer are there lice around to get onto them. They swim out to become healthy adults and they later return with lice.
One group of people believes — and I happen to be among them — that these fish farms are now producing a bank of sea lice that would not normally have been there.
Senator Watt: They are being brought in from the ocean.
Mr. Rickard: In the past, when the little fish came out, they did not encounter sea lice. Now when they come out, the fish run into a whole bunch of fish lice larvae, carried in the water by the current, that adhere to these small fish. Had the fish farms not been there providing a bank of lice larvae, the smolts would not encounter them.
There is another school of thought. Some people believe that intermediate hosts of sea lice are beginning to develop and that they must be studied. We have this controversy of opinion, which brings me back to my original concept. I would prefer that DFO follow their risk averse policy. If you cannot prove that there is no harm, you do not do it, rather than the opposite.
Senator Cowan: At the risk of displaying my ignorance of the recreational fishery on the West Coast, the licences that are granted now would be for specific species. You get a recreational licence to fish halibut or a particular species of salmon. Is that correct?
Mr. Rickard: No, it is not actually. One of the benefits of a recreational license is that it enables you to fish in any of the tidal waters in British Columbia for any of the species that are open for harvest, including shellfish, groundfish or salmon.
Senator Meighen: Listening to you talk, particularly with respect to the problems of the aquaculture industry, you may as well be called the New Brunswick Wildlife Federation or the Nova Scotia Wildlife Federation or the Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Federation. The problems are exactly the same. I hope that would you seek collaborative efforts to solve these problems. Whether the problem is sea lice or cage sites or type of cages, or exotic species — which has not been mentioned and which I want to close on — they are problems we face on both the East Coast and West Coast, and perhaps in our northern waters, but Senator Watt knows more about that than I do.
In terms of exotic species, if I want to start a piranha farm off the coast of British Columbia, or Atlantic salmon, for example, do I have to ask anyone for permission to do that? Can anyone tell me that Atlantic salmon or piranha are not acceptable species to introduce into the waters off British Columbia?
Mr. Rickard: To my knowledge, you would have to apply both to the province and to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, who would then either conduct an environmental impact study themselves or require you to do so. The results of that study would likely determine whether or not you were issued a licence to open that fish farm.
Like you, I am a little wary about the impact of exotic species. I would suggest that there is a greater danger, however. It was fairly well established that Atlantic salmon farming was a good idea because the species would not interbreed, would not be able to naturally reproduce should they escape, and the diseases that affect Atlantic salmon would not affect our wild indigenous salmon species. I believe that was one of the tenets that brought in Atlantic salmon on the coast as being an acceptable practice.
I do not think it is commonly known that the fish farm industry has now turned, in a rather increasingly large degree, to farming our indigenous species. The industry is farming chinook and coho salmon. The concern that many of us have is now we are dealing with farmed salmon that have a very limited genetic viability. They do not go through anything like the protocols that the DFO authorized hatcheries go through in terms of large numbers of combined eggs and sperm. Should they escape, first, they can interbreed with our wild fish.
Senator Meighen: Which they have done and will continue to do.
Mr. Rickard: Second, because they are chinook salmon, should they develop a disease from being kept in large numbers in enclosed pens, the disease could possibly be transferred to the wild stock salmon as well. To my mind, and to the minds of some of the people I speak with, this is perhaps more of a perceived danger than that posed by some of the exotic species.
Senator Meighen: That is exactly what has happened on the East Coast. Do you have problems with the ISA virus, a disease contracted by penned Atlantic salmon and transferred to wild stocks?
Mr. Rickard: Again, this really is not my area of expertise.
Senator Meighen: Do you have disease transfer problems?
Mr. Rickard: I have not heard of a disease transfer problem yet from Atlantic salmon to wild salmon, coho or chinook. Just because I have not heard of it does not mean it has not happened, but I am not aware of it is an issue.
The Chairman: It might not be an issue because there are supposedly no wild Atlantic salmon on the West Coast.
Mr. Rickard: Exactly so.
The Chairman: Thus the transfer of ISA might not be possible. We do not know for sure, but it might not be possible.
On the point that Senator Meighen raised about collaborative efforts, I do hope that we will see a collaborative effort between the East Cost and the West Coast on how to combine their policies in a manner that would be helpful to the recreational fishery.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I will wrap up the meeting by thanking you for your testimony. It has been most informative and helpful to this committee as we try to understand the impact of DFO's policies and proposals on communities. In the process, you have conveyed your passion and your deep interest for the West Coast fishery and in recreational fishing.
You have conveyed as well the sacred heritage with which most British Columbians view their fishery. We discovered that when we visited the West Coast. It is indeed viewed as a very sacred heritage. Your members should be proud of your contribution. You have done a good job this morning.
Do you have any last comments before we adjourn?
Mr. Rickard: I would have to say that I was quite nervous starting out. You have helped me to enjoy the experience, and I am pleased to have had the ability to contribute.
Mr. Toth: Call on us anytime.
The Chairman: Thank you.
The committee adjourned.