Fisheries Committee on Nov. 25th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I call the meeting to order.

We have with us here this morning Mr. Bevan, from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Mr. Bevan, welcome. I know you're no stranger to the proceedings of the committee. I'm not sure if you want to make any opening comments. If you do, you're certainly more than welcome. I know members of the committee have some questions they'd like to ask you as well.

If you'd like to make some opening comments, please proceed at this time.

[David Bevan, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Chairman and honourable members, good morning. It is a privilege and an honour to be here with you today in my new capacity as Associate Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

This is my first time here before the committee in my new function. Hopefully I will be able to maintain the good working relationships we've had in the past.

I've spent most of my career with the department, since I first joined the public service in Halifax in 1975. I worked in Nova Scotia until 1983 and then moved to the Pacific region, first as director of inspection and later as director of operations branch, where I was looking after fisheries and habitat management.

Most of my career, however, has been here in the national capital region, where I have had the pleasure of working as director, inspection services; director general, conservation and protection; director general, resource management; and from 2004 until 2010, assistant deputy minister, fisheries and aquaculture management.

From my years out in the field, through more senior management roles, I can truly say that I have learned the business of the department from the ground up. I believe that this has provided me with a unique perspective on how DFO has evolved over more than three decades, a perspective that I hope will be helpful to my departmental colleagues and to this committee.

Earlier this year I served as senior assistant deputy minister, ecosystems and fisheries management. I was named to my current position in October. I am excited to be taking on this new role at a time when there is so much change and so much we have to do.

Knowing where we have been and the lessons learned through those experiences I hope will serve me well in taking on these new challenges.

As you know, there is no standard definition of what an associate deputy minister does, but in general, the position calls for senior-level oversight of key files and a coordinating function when files are multi-sectoral.

DFO is a large and dispersed regional operational department that has programs and staff in every region of the country. For the senior management team, this means that there is no one-size-fits-all approach. The requirements of the industry in the east, the west, the north, and on the inland waterways are as varied as the regions themselves. The issues we deal with, as committee members well know, are complex and involve economic, social, and environmental considerations, to name only a few.

I look forward to a continued productive and close working relationship with the deputy minister, obviously, and with the whole management team as we tackle the opportunities and challenges of the department together. And those will be numerous in the coming three years.

The deputy minister has asked me to assume responsibility for several key files, including chairing the finance and human resources committees. In addition, I will oversee our activities related to the management accountability framework, values and ethics, and other files, as required.

My new job also includes providing leadership on all aspects of seal management. As committee members know, the mandate of Fisheries and Oceans Canada focuses on the regulation, management, and enforcement of the seal harvest to ensure that it is carried out sustainably, safely, and humanely.

We are also committed to supporting domestic and international market development efforts and to working with our provincial and territorial counterparts to address issues faced by the industry.

In fact, earlier this month federal, provincial, and territorial ministers endorsed a strategy that will contribute to a sustainable seal fishery. It will include market development--broadening the array of seal products available for the market--and engaging the seal industry in strengthening its professionalization.

I will provide critical support to the deputy and the minister on the implementation of the Canadian shellfish sanitation program, as well. This is a program that is under increasing pressure to both improve and deal with newly identified product risks. Environmental challenges are creating challenges for us as well. Working with industry, the provinces, and the territories, the challenge will be to continue to improve the CSSP and to help producers provide the food safety assurances they will need to maintain access to domestic and foreign markets.

I will also be working on two deputy minister committees: social trends, policies, and institutions; and public service management committee. The former examines trends and develops scenarios with respect to social issues and it examines the impact of policy interventions for addressing these issues. The latter provides a forum for discussion of the public service management agenda.

Let me conclude by noting how pleased I am and proud I am to be able to continue my career with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and to have the opportunity to look at and support the department through a somewhat different lens. Even though I've only had five weeks on the job, I can assure you that it's very different from being assistant deputy minister.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bevan.

Mr. Cuzner.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you very much.

Congratulations, David, on your appointment. The only one who trumps you on time in front of this committee would be Claudia, in the interpreters' booth, I think. You have a broad view and understanding.

We're in the midst of assembling the report on the crab fishery. We hear, through the presentations by the witnesses, that the template for presentation of advice to the minister is a concern within the industry, certainly with the outcome of the decision on the TAC in 2009. I'm just wondering if you could walk us through how the advice is portrayed to the minister, how that comes to the minister's office from the regional advisory process meetings forward. The period of time is of concern; when the decisions are announced are of concern; and then the final announcement and the judgment on the part of the minister is of concern. So could you walk us through that?

[David Bevan]

And those decisions, of course, are informed by science.

The science work is conducted in the fall, in terms of the field work. That is then analyzed and goes to the science RAP, the regional advisory process, where there's a discussion as to what advice would be most appropriate regarding the TAC for the coming year. So the analysis takes place between the fall survey and the RAP. That's done internally, the science. The RAP, as you're aware, is a peer review process involving academics from outside the department and sometimes involving people from other countries, etc., depending on the nature of the decision that has to be taken and the circumstances that are faced. So it's a very open and inclusive process, and indeed the provinces and the fishing industry are included in that process.

That then leads to advice that has to be considered by the fishing industry, which is then discussed at the consultations involving the advisory committees, and that process then leads to a memo to the minister. The memo to the minister is not just four or five pages; there's a lot of documentation affixed to it. That would include the stock status reports and the issues, in that case, of what the precautionary approach means and where the stock is relevant to conservation limits, etc. That advice is then provided to the minister in the briefing of the minister's office as well as the minister, and then a decision is taken and communicated back to the department through the notes of the minister on the memo. Then that would be communicated immediately to the fishing industry, and licences, with the appropriate conditions, would be issued shortly thereafter.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

I guess the part we're not getting squared away is that, reading back through the testimony, it states that once the note is done to the minister, industry doesn't know what's in the note. So there's no interface with industry before the note goes—the input is there and the note goes. So they would like to be part of that note going up.

That being said, on the decision in 2009, the minister contends that it was industry that drove the decision to have the increased harvest in 2009, which warranted the reduction in 2010. So do you see? Industry is saying it doesn't have any impact on the final decision or doesn't know the note that goes to her, yet it was industry that drove the decision. She's sort of dumping it back on industry for the decisions she made in 2009.

[David Bevan]

Clearly the minister has, under the act, the authority and the obligation to take the decisions. As you're aware, the act does not provide any legal guidance as to how those decisions should be taken and what should be taken into consideration in making those decisions.

Now, having said that, of course there's case law and natural justice, which would also guide decision-making of ministers, but there's a tremendous amount of discretion available under the act for those decisions. We provide advice to the minister and have discussion with the minister, but we aren't the only ones who provide advice. Industry can express views, etc.

Now, we don't share the memo to the minister with industry because of the fact that it is advice to the minister and is confidential in that regard, but ministers can be approached and have been approached to take into consideration other views from those that may be expressed in the memo.

We always attempt, in our advice to the minister, to reflect the views of provinces and stakeholders as we go forward. And we receive those views throughout the consultative process. They are reflected, to the best of our ability, in the memos, but sometimes individuals or groups wish to come forward and approach the minister prior to the decision being taken and after the minister may have received the advice. That's what happened in 2009.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Go ahead, Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Bevan, my understanding, from what you just said, is that the memo would combine the science and the other perspectives, and the memo would come forward with a specific recommendation.

[David Bevan]

That's correct. The memo comes forward always with options and with a recommended option. So it doesn't come forward with one choice only; it comes forward with usually two or three options for the minister to consider. The minister then would be able to consider those options and the advice provided by officials, as well as the points of views of other people.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

In a process like this, are you permitted to give an opinion about the process? Do you view the process to be acceptable that there can be lobbying by certain interest groups after the peer review process, the consultation, the advisory committees? That's distilled into a memo, but then the minister can still open the door to lobbying by certain groups. Do you see that as a flaw in the process, or is that not a problem?

[David Bevan]

That's democracy. And in terms of the current structure of the act, the act provides no process whatsoever for the exercising of the minister's absolute discretion under section 7 of the act. It doesn't say what kinds of procedures should be followed or what kinds of obligations would be put upon a minister for the exercising of that, outside of case law and outside of the fact that the minister must have reasons for taking decisions, and those reasons have to be relevant to the management of the fisheries. Outside of that, there are no constraints placed on the minister's discretion in the act.

The view of officials goes forward, and it's a synthesis of the best advice we have from science and our understanding of the circumstances, but there are other considerations.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you. I'm sorry to interrupt.

May I ask, is it unusual, in your experience, that a minister knowingly makes a decision that is predicted to steepen the decline in a stock, against the scientific advice of the experts in the department?

[David Bevan]

Well, I think it was clear that the stock was going to go down, notwithstanding what was done in 2009. It was going to go to the trough that was expected and that we anticipate will exist again next year. That's the consensus that I think existed.

What wasn't there was a consensus on the interpretation of the science. Science isn't absolute. It's a dynamic process. There are a lot of different views within the scientific community. The results of the RAP are essentially the best collective view, but not necessarily the absolute truth. So there are people who had different views, and they came forward with them.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

That didn't answer my question, though.

What I understand from the briefing is that there was almost a 50-50 probability, according to the scientists, that there would be a steeper decline than a 25% decline. In fact, the decline was double that.

When you make a decision when given that a 50% probability will steepen this decline, you are knowingly taking that gamble. Is that unusual from your perspective, that a minister will essentially pick the advice of interest groups to benefit over conservation?

[David Bevan]

I'd argue that they didn't benefit, in retrospect.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

In the short term.

[David Bevan]

In the short term, one year they did, but certainly not when they have to look at the declines they're facing this year and next year.

The ministers may have to make decisions. Nobody can make those for them.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Is it unusual to pick that?

[David Bevan]

No. It's happened in the past. It's not unique and it's not unusual that there are different views on science. There are different views on the status of the stock, and the minister has to take those views into consideration as well as the views of the recommendations of the department.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Monsieur Blais.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Mr. Bevan. Congratulations on your appointment. Some might say that it is high time that you were appointed to this position, given your vast experience.

Before meeting with you this morning, I was wondering which issues I would want to raise with you. Indeed, there is the matter of the crab, which we are currently studying, the issue of aquaculture as well, but when you mentioned the seal hunt, you awakened a beast in me which told me to take advantage of the door you opened.

However, before I get to that, I cannot help but bring up the decision taken in 2009. Or rather, I'd like to talk about the years before that. Unless you can prove the contrary, I believe it is impossible for the department not to have known, in 2007, 2008, well before 2009, that the quotas had to come down at all costs.

Ever since I've been in politics—it's been about 7 years now, even 10 years—I have been hearing about the snow crab cycle. Therefore, this was nothing new; this was something which was known. So we all knew that, at some point, the cycle would dip, as far as the biomass was concerned.

In 2009, there absolutely should have been a reduction, but why was the quota not reduced before? Were there any signs of what was going to happen or none at all? You held that position at the time.

[David Bevan]

The snow crab biomass follows a cycle in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Once in a while, ministers are faced with tough decisions. I said "ministers", because this matter does not only concern the current minister. Other ministers preceded him, and they all faced the same question: there had to be a reduction, but how big would it be, how many snow crabs could be caught in one year?

In the past, sometimes a minister's decision was different—it was higher—from what the government would have wanted, from what the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would have wanted, and that would have been his choice. This is usually what happens when this kind of decision has to be taken. Indeed, fishermen, scientists, ministers and departments don't always share the same opinion, and the minister must make a tough call.

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

Could we therefore conclude that no minister, since 2007, applied the basic precautionary principle, which is based on vigilance?

[David Bevan]

We developed a preventive approach regarding the snow crab fishery in 2010. Previously, this was not the case. Scientists have not told us about the dangers or any long-term problems that might arise as a result of the decrease in the crab population.