Fisheries Committee on June 14th, 2016

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

And then you can still ask questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

Okay, I'll wait until the end.

[A Voice]

I'll give you my time.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

You can start.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

Okay, thanks.

Will it be a principle of the research program that all research will eventually have a management outcome, such that if you do, let's say, habitat work or habitat research, there will be a management outcome that will enhance fish stocks?

Could give really short answers, please? I have a couple more questions.

[Dr. Arran McPherson]

If I've understood your question correctly, the majority of the research that we're doing will have a management outcome. However, sometimes that management outcome may be over a longer time scale and sometimes it will be over a shorter time scale.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

I am a fan of basic research, but to me, basic research should be done in universities.

We had testimony in the last term from DFO officials that the recreational fishery in Canada was an $8 billion industry and the commercial fishery was at about $2 billion. Can you estimate the distribution of effort of the new research program between the recreational and the commercial fishery?

[Dr. Arran McPherson]

I'm sorry, but I don't have it broken down that way. I've never thought about it in the context of supporting the commercial versus the recreational fishery, because we have resources that are going to the central and Arctic region, for example, that would be responsible for recreational fishing in some ways and for supporting that. I'm sorry, but I don't have the numbers that way.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

The Atlantic salmon fishery has become a recreational fishery. Again, I would just ask you to keep that in mind.

The other thing is that I am disappointed at how small a proportion of the funding is being devoted to freshwater areas. According to testimony during the last term, when I was on the fisheries committee, the most valuable fish species in Canada is the walleye. Do you anticipate doing any research on walleye at all?

[Dr. Arran McPherson]

With these new funds, the focus of our research on freshwater areas is, as I've described, in specific locations and focused largely on ecosystem stressors and aquatic invasive species. However, we do have a partnership fund and a fund dedicated to fisheries resource and assessment, so all species in Canada would be eligible for support under those program areas.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

To me, though, fish are for people, and I see a tendency in the scientific community toward a love of research with not a lot of emphasis on the people portion. I think Mr. McDonald was alluding to this being very much a people resource. I would urge you to focus on the fact that fish are for people and to have the socio-economic focus in your mind at all times.

My last point is that there's been a commitment to “unmuzzle” scientists. Will we at this committee have the ability to ask any scientist who's with the department, at whatever level they happen to be, to come and testify before our committee, given the government's policy of unmuzzling scientists?

[Dr. Arran McPherson]

As you said, the Government of Canada supports and the department's supports our scientists talking freely about the research they do. Not knowing the procedures of this committee, I would suggest that if you had questions on a specific topic, we would be happy to provide a witness.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

Thank you. Thank you, colleagues, for letting me speak.

Now we have Mr. Finnigan for a few minutes.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The first GMO salmon is going to be introduced in the Canadian market, specifically as an egg at this stage, and possibly on the shelf. I am the chair of the agriculture committee, and we're going to have to study that.

Perhaps you can help me with that by answering this question. To what extent does DFO involve itself with GMO research, and has consideration ever been given, in an effort to preserve a species that is disappearing, to introducing genetically modified or altered fish into the wild?

[Dr. Jay Parsons]

I can start by answering that question. I might need clarification on the latter part. I'm certainly not aware of any research under way in the department that would be genetically modifying any fish species for any purpose, whether it's aquaculture or conservation, and introducing it into the environment.

The first part of your question relates more to DFO's role. We don't have a direct regulatory role with regard to the regulation of genetically modified organisms and, in particular, aquatic organisms. However, we do support Environment Canada in their regulatory role under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in that we provide scientific support, in particular risk assessment support, for Environment Canada's decision-making around the manufacture of genetically modified organisms and, as I said, aquatic organisms in particular.

In the recent example in 2003, when there was a submission to Environment Canada for a request to manufacture a genetically modified Atlantic salmon, it was our department's role to undertake an environmental and indirect human health risk assessment of that particular application and provide that advice to Environment Canada.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

I have a follow-up.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

You have 45 seconds.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

So far no GMO has ever been introduced into the wild. Could that be done? That's going to be asked of me. Is there consideration in the future to introduce salmon that has been genetically modified into the wild?

[Dr. Jay Parsons]

I'm certainly not aware of any interest or application of genetically modified organisms being introduced into the aquatic environment. The particular case that we provided the risk assessment on was based solely on land-based containment that had multiple layers of biological and physical containment.

Because one of your questions related to research, I should also clarify that the department does undertake some research on genetically modified organisms, salmonids, but very much with the research focused on our ability to undertake risk assessment, i.e., understand some of the potential ecological interactions. The research is very much focused in that direction.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

Thank you.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Robert Sopuck]

Mr. Arnold, you have three minutes.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to go back to Ms. Jordan's question about the marine protected areas.

This $197 million didn't just grow on a tree. It's taxpayers' dollars and it is over a five-year plan. I think we owe it to the taxpayers to be able to explain to them how much of this $197 million will be directed toward developing these new marine protected areas over the five years. Can you please give us a bit of a breakdown on that?

[Dr. Arran McPherson]

I certainly can try. I thank you for your question.

Coming back to my comments a little earlier in the session, these resources will be used to gather information on species composition and locations—basic, broad oceanographic information— whereas the marine protected areas work focuses on specific locations and efficacy of management measures. We can't do that work until we have a location largely selected. We're just not there yet in the process to reach our targets in 2017 and 2020.

An announcement last week by our minister and others shared some details about the plan to achieve those targets and identified a proposed dollar figure of investment for that work to be done. Some of those resources would be used for that science work.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Some of the resources out of this $197 million would be going to that?