Fisheries Committee on Dec. 7th, 2006

[Wendy Watson-Wright]

Serge or Savi, do want to respond?

[Savi Narayanan, Director General, Oceans Science and Canadian Hydrographic Service and Dominion Hydrographer, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

We are addressing this in many different ways. First of all, in order to address climate change, you need to have historical information and ongoing information. The monitoring plan we are developing will feed into that, but in the past we had a number of areas we have been monitoring, the variability in the ocean, in the atmosphere, etc.

Secondly, we are working with other departments like Environment Canada to develop integrated models for forecasting climate change, and we are also working with other countries. You have to remember that climate change is a global issue. Recently we were discussing with France to work with them to develop a global model to address the climate variability.

We are also working with the universities. You probably know there is the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, and we work very closely with that. In fact, Wendy Watson-Wright is a member of that board, and they have considerable funding as well.

It is a challenge to address that, and Fisheries and Oceans cannot do it alone, so we are working with Environment Canada, with the universities, and with other partners in other countries.

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

Excuse me for interrupting you. I’d like to hear you talk, not about the global aspect of the subject, but about how the Department of Fisheries and Oceans plans to deal with climate change, in terms of marine resources.

I understand the whole global aspect, but I’d like you to talk more specifically about the measures being taken by Fisheries and Oceans Canada to deal with this issue. It is global and environmental, for sure, but my main concern is the marine resources. I’d even go so far as to say that I am concerned specifically about the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

[Serge Labonté]

The climate change or climate variability aspect is an integral part of our research plan and strategy concerning the fish stocks.

I have to say that, in terms of resource management, we can position ourselves. This involves better understanding the impact these changes will have on our resources and how the resources will change in terms of distribution, abundance and species, so that we can provide advice in order to adapt to these changes.

Climate change will not end from one day to the next. The distribution of species is going to change. We have a major role to play in this regard. We are trying to integrate elements that enable us to make these predictions in our research and management strategy.

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

But what does all that mean in concrete terms?

[Serge Labonté]

As far as the salmon on the Pacific coast are concerned, for example, we are studying how environmental change is affecting the productivity of the stocks and how that is going to affect the comeback of the salmon in the future. We are taking account of environmental change in our attempts to make predictions, so that we can provide advice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you, Mr. Blais.

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

Ms. McClung wanted to add something.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Madame McClung, very quickly, please.

[Lucie McClung]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Apart from the scientific support for these questions, which is going to last for many years, we agree, other departmental strategies are being managed by other sectors. You are aware of the discussions in which several provinces and industry representatives are taking part at present concerning the future and viability of resources. The discussions are not specifically about climate change, but about the future of the fisheries. These discussions take the environment into consideration in a global fashion, and includes climate change and its effects. Also, the department wants to present an aquaculture viability strategy, which could be a viable, more natural, we might say, alternative for fishermen and the fishing sector.

There’s all this work concerning the management plan for the oceans and large bodies of water that we’d like to continue in order to see how the integration of all the variables might affect the St. Lawrence River. In short, there are strategies designed to adjust resources.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

I'm going to have to cut you off there. We will have time in the next round of questions to further explore that subject, I'm certain.

Mr. Stoffer.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for coming today.

I'm just going over the estimates here for science for 2008-09, and it shows a decrease from 2005-06 of almost $23 million. I'm just wondering, with all the things that science is being asked to do--and you had indicated the pressures that science is under and all that you're being asked to do--how the department can justify a decrease in science. I know members of this committee and others who are out there in the world are asking for more human and financial resources to science.

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

Thank you very much.

The numbers aren't totally reflective, and there are some numbers in 2006-07 that may not be in 2005-06, and vice versa. My recollection is that for 2005-06 the vessel numbers were included, whereas for 2006-07 the vessel numbers were not included.

So in fact in 2006-07 it has been augmented as opposed to decreased. That's for the total.

I would also say that in terms of 2005-06, if you look at the breakdown among the various strategic objectives, it's a bit misleading because that was the first time we were starting to report this way, so we weren't able to pin down every single dollar. But that was, we feel, pretty close. Overall, it's an augmentation; it's not a decrease.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

I can appreciate 2005-06, but I'm looking directly at figures from your department for 2008 and 2009. The total for 2005-06 shows $240.2 million. The total for 2008-09 shows $217.4 million.

I may not be a mathematician, but that shows a decrease, and with your science framework for the future and all the pressures put against science, how does the department justify the decrease over a two-year period?

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

Mr. Chair, I think some of these answers were given in some of the other meetings when the ADM of human resources and corporate services was here, meaning that some of the planned spending is based on a given point in time, whereas the actual spending as we approach may be different.

I've already mentioned the figures for vessels and the fact that their presence or absence makes a difference to the total. There are some sunset programs included in the numbers you are seeing, which would account for increases or decreases in a given year. And I will say also that although I referred earlier to ministerial direction to not decrease the stock assessment by $6 million, in fact the numbers reflect that as coming out. So those adjustments haven't been made yet, and we're still trying to catch up with the other adjustments, plus any new initiatives that may be coming up in future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Ms. Watson-Wright, I believe Mr. Stoffer is quoting from the updated numbers from the last time ministerial personnel were here.

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

Yes, the revised spending.

[Lucie McClung]

And the roll-up is scheduled to be delivered to all members, I believe, early next week, just for the reconciliation, so that we're clear in the record.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

I have a couple of other questions. One is on the Larocque decision. Where is the department planning to find the funds that were previously there before? What is your opinion of the Larocque decision?

Also, Madam Watson-Wright, when you talk about peer review, who does the peer review? Is it within the department, or do you go outside of DFO to ask for a specific analysis of information that is provided to fishermen?

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

Mr. Chair, I'll answer the last question first. The peer review very definitely goes outside the department. As I mentioned, we bring in academics, we bring in industry, we bring in international experts, if need be, and we bring in other regions. So we very definitely go outside the department.

In terms of Larocque, of course, as with everything in the department and with science, it's not simple. We have done quite an extensive analysis as to what partnering arrangements we have with industry that could be possibly considered fish for science. There is, within that, then, an analysis that needs to be done as to whether this will continue, would we try to do it ourselves, or will the industry be willing to pick that up in some other way. And in fact we have had very positive signals from at least some parts of the industry that they very much wish to sit down with us to ask how we can work through this together.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

Thank you.

You're out of time, Mr. Stoffer.

There are a couple of points. You mentioned feature articles that will be coming out from the science department that you will certainly make available to the committee. We would like to have those. You mentioned also that you had, I believe, some long-range and short-range planning available, some plans available.

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

We have a draft five-year research plan, and I would propose that once we've come to ground on that a bit more--it's pretty technical at this point--within the department and externally, I would very much wish to share it with this committee should you so wish.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

You'd be surprised how quickly we can get through the nomenclature.

The first annual report is available now?

[Dr. Wendy Watson-Wright]

It's in press.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerald Keddy]

If you could give us some further written clarification on your pesticides and toxic chemical analysis, that would be useful to us. If you could make that available, it would be appreciated.

I'll make one comment before we go to our next questioner. When we did the study on northern cod, the one thing we found that was extremely consistent and, frankly, one of the great losses, due to political interference in the fisheries department—and I'm not making that as a partisan statement—was that disconnect between science and the fishermen on the ground, the person out in the boat who, like you, is an observer and has indepth knowledge of the resource, the climate, and the geography. Many of them have years and decades of information that's very important to your work as a scientist. I think that's been the great loss.

I don't make any apologies for politicians who have interfered in the process, and who have hindered and hurt the fishery by political decisions. But I do see that disconnect widening, and I'm wondering if you're seeing it coming back a bit, and if you have any advice on how we get back to having a good relationship between science and the fishers.

I realize that sometimes those of us in political life are problematic to that, but do you see a way to bring them closer together?