Evidence of meeting #32 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was science.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Lucie McClung  Senior Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Wendy Watson-Wright  Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Serge Labonté  Senior Director General, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Savi Narayanan  Director General, Oceans Science and Canadian Hydrographic Service and Dominion Hydrographer, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Sylvain Paradis  Director General, Ecosystem Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Robert Rangeley  Vice-President, Atlantic Region, World Wildlife Fund Canada

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy

I call the meeting to order. The orders of the day are, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study on the Department of Fisheries and Oceans science renewal initiative.

Welcome to our witnesses, Monsieur Paradis, Ms. McClung, Ms. Watson-Wright, Mr. Labonté, and Ms. Narayanan.

Welcome, and certainly welcome to our members.

Ms. McClung.

11:05 a.m.

Lucie McClung Senior Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Thank you very much, and good morning, Mr. Chair and members.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss more in-depth efforts in science at the department. I'm accompanied by many people, but let me introduce them before I turn it over to Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright, who is the assistant deputy minister responsible for science. With me is Monsieur Serge Labonté, director general, who is leading the science renewal that you have targeted for your attention this morning; Dr. Sylvain Paradis, director general, ecosystem science directorate; and Dr. Savi Narayanan, who is responsible for ocean science and the Canadian Hydrographic Service.

You've been provided with the presentation, so I will not take up too much of your time. We have an hour. I will ask Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright to go through the presentation to set the context for your questions.

Thank you.

11:05 a.m.

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Merci beaucoup, Lucie.

Bonjour, tout le monde. Thank you for asking us to be here.

I will go through the deck as quickly as I can, and we'll be happy to answer questions afterward.

On the presentation, beginning with slide 2, I would just like to give some context as to where we were when we started to undertake the science review.

This began in 2004, and it was initiated to assess the science programs and activities in light of the new departmental strategic objectives and high priorities, and to look at what were some possible changes that we might make to the science program to better support DFO and the federal government policy.

The review helped us to identify key challenges or areas where we might indeed make improvements, and those included that we had a lack of a well-defined priority-setting process; in some cases we felt program delivery was not as efficient as it might have been; there is definitely a need to regenerate the workforce due to retirements and pending attrition; and also, at the time, there were funding pressures with an expanding departmental mandate and emerging priorities. I think the key message here is that the mandate was expanding but the resources were not rising in conjunction with the expanding mandate.

On slide 3 you will see the objective for the DFO science renewal, and this really is that we will have a vibrant aquatic science program based on excellence, as always, that supports and informs DFO on government needs and best serves Canadians.

You will see on slide 4 what we're calling our DFO science framework for the future. As you can see, that framework is comprised of or based on four pillars or guiding principles, and those are: relevance, effectiveness, affordability, and value. I will elaborate on each of those a little more in the coming slides.

On slide 5, in terms of relevance, you may recognize this, basically, as the DFO science program activity architecture. I have to say it was a fairly major undertaking to go from the three business lines, which committee members may remember, those being fisheries and oceans science, environmental science, and hydrography, as well as a project inventory of around 1,250 projects, to this structure, which now has 11 clusters of activities, but we hope and we feel that this is more reflective of what we do, it's easier to explain, and it should be easier for you to see where we are.

At the top, you can see the three strategic objectives for the department. We've discussed those previously at committee. Underneath, you will see three science themes that cut across the strategic objectives, and then, as I mentioned, there are 11 issue areas that really reflect the program activity architecture.

I have to say that the themes and each of the activities are not easily lined up under any one strategic objective because, as you may understand, all the science that we do contributes in varying proportions to the various strategic outcomes, depending upon how the information is used.

To the left, in the oval, you will see there are science functions mentioned. There are five, those being research, monitoring, advisory processes, products and services, and data management. I'll speak a little bit to those, but, essentially, that's a different cut at how we do science; those are the components that we undertake in order to come up with the information for decision-makers.

On slide 6, and still under the pillar of relevance, fundamental to the renewal is the establishment of what we call the Science Management Board. The Science Management Board is chaired by the deputy. It is there to provide for a structured, formalized, and strategic process for priority-setting for science within the department. This is the first time this has happened within the department and this is the only department that has a structure of this nature or a process of this nature for formalized priority-setting for science.

The members are responsible for discussing the priorities needing science support. I will say that the membership includes the deputy, as I mentioned, myself, the two most relevant client sectors, those being oceans and habitat management and fisheries and aquaculture management, the chair of my external science advisory committee, Dr. Arthur Colin, and two of our senior scientists within the department. There are also two regional directors general, one east and one west, who represent all the regions.

We've met three times with this committee, and at the most recent meeting the board reviewed in detail our draft five-year research plan. We always have very good discussions, and we would be pleased to speak more to this.

If we move to the next slide, you will see that in terms of effectiveness, as we've mentioned previously at this committee, we are moving to an ecosystem approach. At our first Science Management Board meeting there was unanimous agreement that we do need to move in this direction. If I could just say for a moment, coming back to the context, in the past some of you may know our major client, our only client, was fisheries management, but we now have more. We have aquaculture, we have oceans, and we have habitat. Trying to square all those competing demands is why we put the management board together. We'd be pleased to discuss more what ecosystem science entails, but I will move on at this moment.

On slide 8...I mentioned the science functions earlier, and in fact during the review period we had a very intensive look at each and every one of our science functions. On monitoring, we put together an extensive report on what we do across the country. The monitoring, really, is the data collection, and a very large part of our data collection is done from vessels. We've talked about science vessels here before. That report is available and we'd be happy to provide it to you. We are now putting together an operational plan for the Atlantic, the Pacific, the Arctic, for freshwater, and Pacific salmon.

Data management is essential. We need to be able to access data; we need to be able to organize data. With pending retirements, we need to make sure we know where it is and that people can get to it.

Products and services are really related mostly to the Canadian Hydrographic Service, their charts, tide tables, and whatnot. Again, we can speak to that.

On research, I mentioned that we have a draft research plan, which ultimately we'd be happy to share with this committee.

All of this goes into the scientific advice, and we have a very extensive advisory process. You can access on our website all of our advisory processes for the coming year, which would relate to stock assessment, habitat assessment, state of the oceans, and whatnot.

Slide 9 is on effectiveness. We're looking at modernizing delivery. For one thing, we have always partnered, but we understand that we need to do more partnering, more effective partnering, so we have worked on a partnering and collaboration strategy. In conjunction with other science-based departments and agencies, there is also quite a lot of work going on in that area.

In addition to that, we have effected a different mechanism of delivery of our science. We have put in place a number of centres of expertise, which I'll speak to on the next slide. This is slide 10. Essentially there are two types of what we call COEs. One type is geographic; we have a couple of those, where all the scientists are in the same location. We're focusing more on the virtual centres of expertise, where we have a leader in one region, but we connect. It's more like a network of researchers.

Four of the COEs have been operational for a few years now, and I think you've heard of some of them. For example, there's COOGER, the Centre for Offshore Oil and Gas Environmental Research, but there are others listed there. We have others in development, such as the Centre for research on Hydropower Impact on Fish and their habitat, CHIF, and the Centre of Expertise for Aquatic Risk Assessment, CEARA, which really relates to aquatic invasive species, and others.

Also, on effectiveness--I'm moving to slide 11--there's the highly skilled workforce. This committee has certainly indicated that you understand the challenges we're facing in the future. We are just coming to completion on a science HR strategy and plan. It will focus on strategic recruitment and retention, on fostering continuous learning and mentoring, and on strengthening our scientific and management capacity, as well as addressing any employment equity gaps. We also recognize that we need to further develop a culture that fosters the whole notion of collaboration, of multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary work, and also working with a spectrum of partners.

Moving to affordability on slide 12, this is really what was driving the department, as you know, and science as well.

The renewal of the science program is supported by key strategies that are being integrated into a formalized process. We have an integrated financial and human resources strategy. For the at-sea science strategy, we are working closely with the coast guard to ensure that we can afford the vessels and get the work done that we need to do. On equipment strategy and infrastructure, I will just mention that as being addressed in an initiative led by Treasury Board, looking at the notion of where will the Government of Canada reinvest in federal science laboratories.

Also on affordability, I would note that in the recent past, in 2006-07, we actually have had an injection of funds. The transformational plan, which you've heard of, did result in $15.5 million coming into science overall. Of that, $2 million was major capital, $4 million went to vessels, and $9.5 million has gone directly into science for ecosystem research, monitoring, and high-risk charting.

The minister has given us direction this year, as you have heard, to maintain investment in stock assessment of $6 million that was scheduled to be cut under the expenditure review decisions. As well, he has directed us to retain the vessel, the Wilfred Templeman, in service until a new vessel arrives in 2011, and that would account for another $3 million.

We have remaining before us a financial challenge in terms of the Larocque court decision, which we can discuss a bit later, but essentially that was a decision that the minister cannot allocate fish that would then be used to finance science activities within the department.

And finally, under value, the science that we do, we recognize that most people don't know what we do. And in fact one of my science advisory committee members said to me, after touring one of our facilities, you know, these are the best stories never told and you need to get the story out.

We have been working hard on that. We are working on a strategy, but in advance of the strategy, we have done a number of things. We will have a first ever annual report of DFO science, which is in press, which we will be happy to share with members as soon as we can get it off the press. We have feature articles on the website. New ones come out every two weeks, and if you wish to be on the list, we would be happy to include you in that list. We also have an ADM lecture series here in Ottawa. And, again, if you wish to be on the list for those, you can be. In fact, tomorrow at 1:30 there is one on cod, “Cod Recovery: Food for Thought”, by Jean-Denis Dutil of our Quebec region.

Finally, under value, we also have an integrated risk and performance management framework. We need to be able to measure what we do, to demonstrate what we do, and why it is of importance to decision-makers and Canadians.

Essentially, Mr. Chair, I will close there. I think the last slide speaks for itself. I think the science renewal is on the right path, but we are certainly open to suggestions from this committee as to how we can improve and do more.

Thank you. Merci beaucoup.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy

Thank you very much for your presentation. I'm sure we'll have some suggestions. We have normally a shy and reclusive crowd here, but they may be able to come out of their shell to be forthright.

Mr. Byrne.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for the very thoughtful presentation. There was a lot of good information there to digest.

From the point of view of members sitting at this table and the constituents we serve, one of the greatest points of concern that we encounter with our constituents and your stakeholders is consistent, responsible information that fishermen can take with confidence.

I'd like to give you two fisheries management examples where confidence has been somewhat shaken in the department's ability to actually effect good scientific analysis to assist managers.

Situation number one is cod in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Many of us remember in 2003 there was a decision that was taken to put cod in the northern gulf and southern gulf into a moratorium. That was based on scientific information that was coming out at the time. It caused a lot of political, economic, and social upheaval. It cost the local economy of the region approximately $22 million in direct spending and probably more in indirect spending. On that advice from science, the fishery was shut down. We now know, of course, that the advice was probably somewhat suspect in the sense that the fishery was open the following year, and just about every year since we've had increases in quota, therefore causing a certain amount of concern on the part of fishermen as to whether or not the original decision to place a moratorium on the fishery was a valid one.

The second circumstance would be shrimp in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in area 4, in the estuary region. There was a decision to cut gulf shrimp by 27%. Other stocks had been increasing. It was based on scientific evidence. Even though adjacent stocks were deemed by DFO at the Maurice Lamontagne Institute to be healthy, the northern gulf shrimp stock was viewed to be in jeopardy. There was an original recommendation to cut it by 27%. That was eventually cut to 20%, and now we have almost a full reinstatement of that particular quota.

The point I'm getting at is that fishermen need to have confidence that when DFO is acting using the precautionary principle, every possible element, every resource, is put to task to provide good stock assessments and to provide recommendations to managers as to exactly what TACs and quotas should be.

In your review, has that been front and centre in the decision-making process, because in those two fisheries alone—and I could cite more--I've just described to you economic costs in the tens of millions of dollars that most would agree in hindsight were deemed to be unnecessary?

11:20 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

I will take a stab at that, and then I'll ask Monsieur Labonté to continue.

First of all, thank you for that. We do recognize that fishermen and scientists do need to understand each other and we need to work closely together. We are trying to do that better and will continue to do so.

The advisory process within the department is not limited to the department, as you may know. We bring together all the experts we can find on a given stock. In terms of northern gulf cod, for example, we have had extensive advisory processes including not just DFO scientists, not just the scientists who work on a given stock, but all those who have input. We bring in industry and academics and put together a very rigorous peer review process for any of these things. We do our best to provide the best scientific advice we possibly can.

There are always those who will disagree with the recommendations or with decisions that come out subsequent to the science input on both sides, but my feeling is that we do, and continue to, provide the most expert advice that we possibly can.

On the shrimp issue, I am less familiar with that so I'll ask Monsieur Labonté to speak to it.

My main message is that I agree with you. We do need to provide the very best scientific information that we can. We take that responsibility very seriously. Not all will agree with everything, but it is a peer review process, and at the end of the day, everybody who participates is part of that advice, which is then taken in conjunction with socio-economic information.

Serge.

11:25 a.m.

Serge Labonté Senior Director General, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

The only point I would have to add is that I think our scientists are trying to work as closely as possible with the fishermen, in terms of doing the surveys and exchanging over the course of the year, to make sure they have all the information. As Dr. Watson-Wright mentioned, as you go to the peer review, you have to provide the best possible advice you have with the information you have that you can interpret. At the end of the day, science supports the decision-making process. The decision is not just made on science, but the best advice is used in terms of making decisions. There is always variability in the information that is provided, and it's why it's reviewed in the largest possible forum.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL

Monsieur Labonté, there is a common thread and characteristic between both of the examples I gave. In the years in question, the Teleost, was performing the outer trawl surveys to actually do the stock assessments, and it's in the DFO scientific documents that those trawl surveys were inadequate in being able to provide effective baseline data as to exactly what the stock assessments were.

There was gear fouling. There were a limited number of tows. The vessel was incapacitated; it was at port for most of the summer. But despite all of that, despite the fact that the vessel was basically not performing within what would normally be considered to be normal parameters, DFO went forward and made recommendations, and it was based on, in fairness, a precautionary principle. But I think that's where the disconnect is created here. Despite the fact that there were concerns or issues within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans science branch, and those who were conducting these surveys, that never really got brought to the full attention of decision-makers and stakeholders. This is a major concern that I think each and every one of us has, especially when that kind of circumstance is brought to full light.

11:25 a.m.

Senior Director General, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Serge Labonté

In all fairness, Mr. Byrne, in the way the assessment of cod was done at the time.... The survey that is carried out by the department is only one of the indices that is used in doing the survey. We have many other indices that are used. There is the sentinel fishery survey, for instance, the mobile gear and the fixed gear, and there is ongoing discussion on the state of the fishery. To my recollection, the indices—and I can see the assessment in front of me—show that the index from the sentinel survey was parallel with the index of the research vessel survey of the department. They have been in parallel for a number of years.

So I don't think there were major discrepancies in terms of the various indices. I agree that the large-vessel survey we have cannot go inshore up to the bay, and things like that, but this is why there are the other kinds of indices in order to look at the resource.

So I don't think the department was careless in terms of looking at all the information available in terms of providing the advice. But the state of the stock has been very low in terms of what it has been in the past, probably 10% of the spawning biomass as compared to the mid-eighties. In that sense, the stock was at a low state. So the issue here is rebuilding the stock versus keeping the stock where they are. The advice took that into consideration, to the best of my knowledge.

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy

You have 46 seconds.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Bill Matthews Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

I'll ask a very quick question to ADM Watson-Wright.

In a response to Mr. Byrne, Ms. Watson-Wright, you mentioned northern cod and peer review. There is a peer review process. What would be the peer review process on northern cod? What information would there be, and where does it come from for there to be a peer review? My understanding is that there is very little research done on northern cod. So I'd like to know what kind of a peer review there would be on that.

11:30 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

If I didn't say northern gulf cod, I should have. That's what I was referring to.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Bill Matthews Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

So you're talking about the same problem Mr. Byrne was on.

11:30 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

Yes, I was. Sorry.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

Bill Matthews Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

Okay.

I guess my time is up.

11:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy

It is, as a matter of fact. We'll come back to you.

Mr. Blais.

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’m going to begin by asking you an easy question, and then a very hard one.

Here’s the easy one: where are your centres of expertise?

11:30 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

They are located in a lot of different places. There are two or three at Mont-Joli, one in Moncton and two in Halifax, among others.

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Are you talking about a concentration of scientists?

11:30 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

No. Most of the centres of expertise are virtual. The scientists are located in several locations, but there’s a boss. It’s like a network.

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

In other words, they may be located anywhere.

11:30 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Are there any here in Ottawa?

11:30 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans

Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright

No. The purpose of the centres of expertise is to facilitate research. We don’t do research in Ottawa. The researchers are in the regions.

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC

Right. Now for the hard question, which concerns climate change. I read your document and I have read other presentations you’ve made. Furthermore, this isn’t the first time we’ve met. I would really like, however, to know about your action plan on climate change, from a scientific perspective.

I understand, by my lights, that, on account of climate change, marine resources, on which a large number of our communities depend, are probably doomed. Actually we don’t really know what lies ahead. I figure that, in such conditions, the only people I can trust are the soothsayers and the scientists. Anyone can predict the future, but not everyone is a scientist.

I’d like you to tell me about not just the general plans broached here, that is, the science, the work done by other federal departments, the universities and other countries, with a view to dealing with this global issue. To my mind, dealing with this issue is much more than that. I want to know what your approach has been to this file in recent years and what it will be in future.