Fisheries Committee on April 26th, 2022

[Dr. Kristi Miller-Saunders]

Funding in the department is largely based on competitive proposals. There is the new Pacific salmon strategy initiative. I have not yet received any funding from that strategy, but I anticipate that hopefully I will.

I fund my program principally through money outside of the department, because I have better success in generating funds to do my research with outside granting agencies than I do inside the department. I have published 55 peer-reviewed publications in the last five years. I think my program and the prolific nature of the science we do is pretty well documented.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

We'll now go to Ms. Barron, for two and a half minutes, please.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

There's one question that I'm asking myself, and I know many others are as well.

Dr. Miller-Saunders, I'm wondering if you could provide your opinion on how things could or would have been different had the results of your scientific report from 2012 been made available in a more timely way. What are your thoughts on what might have been different as a result of that?

[Dr. Kristi Miller-Saunders]

Certainly the results of that study were made available within the department. Every piece of science that is done in my group is reported up through the chain if it could potentially impact policies or regulations. The department certainly knew, even back in 2012, of those findings.

Publicly, the findings of PRV were first put out by another group, based on the IP in the findings of my group. I wasn't able to publish the first discovery of PRV in Canada, nor was I able to carry out a lot of new research in that area, and certainly not with those particular samples.

It's a hard question. There has been a lot of research on that particular virus now. There have been laboratory challenge studies undertaken. There have been a lot of field studies. PRV has been tracked within the department for several years, largely in cultured fish, but my program has tracked it in wild fish.

There is a mounting weight of evidence on the impacts of PRV. It's really important to note that, everywhere else in the world, PRV is known to be a disease agent, and all strains of PRV have been shown to be capable of causing disease in salmon—in Pacific salmon and in Atlantic salmon. The research from my lab would back up that international viewpoint.

I don't know.... It's hard to turn back the clock and know how things would have been different if that had been made public at the time. However, I think that significant inroads have been made since that time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Barron. Your time is up.

We'll now go to Mr. Zimmer for five minutes or less.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to, first of all, thank my colleague Mr. Arnold for putting this study forward. It's a very important study. It's a study of science at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Forgive my preamble, but it will take a few minutes.

I wanted to highlight another example that you may not have heard. It's a science-based proposal to have a brief opening to fish for hatchery chinook in B.C. Modest science supported the sport fishing advisory board proposals, but they were not approved due to undisclosed concerns. These previously undisclosed concerns were new concerns, and they were finally made known to the sport fishing advisory board post facto. This is based on closures last year and hoping for an opening this year.

Proposals have been put forward that address these new concerns in Howe Sound, Pacific fisheries management area 28 and southeast Vancouver Island PFMAs 17, 18, and 19. Again, these amended proposals, which were already ranked as low risk, provide even more protection for local and Fraser River stocks of concern. So far, during the current integrated harvest planning process, senior DFO Pacific region staff have informed the sport fishing advisory board that they will not reopen the existing 2021-22 salmon IFMP.

The sport fishing advisory board has met the department's new information requirement and has substantially adjusted its proposals based on this new information. However, despite the minister promising to listen to the science-based proposal, we have recently heard that the minister completely disregarded the science-based proposal.

This is a question for Ms. Leblanc and and Ms. Miller-Saunders. Does it surprise you that the minister for DFO disregarded sound science. Please answer yes or no.

[Judith Leblanc]

As part of my duties as a science advisor at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, I am required to not only evaluate research projects, but also submit advice to the department's management. Once the advice is submitted, the decisions rest with management, not with me in my role as science advisor. My 26 years of experience in the department have taught me to understand my area of influence. I can have some influence, but the decision is not mine.

[Dr. Kristi Miller-Saunders]

I would echo the comments of Dr. Leblanc that our role as scientists is to provide scientific information, not to make the policy. We have very little control...or a limited amount of input on what science moves forward to the minister, or even to upper managers in Ottawa, and how they utilize that science.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Maybe I'll ask it one more time. Does it surprise you that the minister for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans disregards sound science? I would like a yes or no from each of you.

[Dr. Kristi Miller-Saunders]

Not in my experience.

[Judith Leblanc]

As a scientific advisor, my opinion is about the science. Other elements are part of the decision-making process, but...

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

A simple yes or no was what I was looking for.

I will move on to question two. I read the recent CBC article of January 24, 2022, that quotes you, Ms. Leblanc. You said:

A pattern of decisions and events has emerged in the department that is causing scientists in the Newfoundland and Labrador region to have grave concerns about the current status and future direction in the department's science advice, scientific independence, scientific excellence and integrity....

This is my second question. How do you believe DFO should integrate science-based advice into its decision-making? Give a quick answer, please.

[Judith Leblanc]

Thank you for the question.

As I stated earlier, this letter was written in a context other than that related to my position at the department. I am therefore unable to comment on it.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I understand that. I'm asking a different question, though.

I'm asking how you believe DFO should integrate science-based advice into its decision-making. I quoted the article, but I'm asking you a specific question that doesn't necessarily relate to that previous paragraph.

How do you believe DFO should integrate science-based advice into its decision-making?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I'm sorry. We have to move on, Mr. Zimmer. Your time has gone over.

We'll now go to Mr. Morrissey for five minutes or less, please.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Vigneault, from reading your opening statement, you used words like “transparency” and “transparent”. Peer review is a vital component of the important challenge function that the DFO science sector provides, and your reviews have included domestic and international scientific experts from academia, indigenous communities, environmental non-governmental organizations and industry experts.

Dr. Vigneault, has DFO science ever gotten decisions wrong in the past based on the data that your own department has? I'm using that in relation, because various fisher organizations engage scientists. They do their own data. How do you interpret the scientific information that they're providing you versus what you're receiving from DFO's scientific division?

[Dr. Bernard Vigneault]

Thank you for the question.

Yes. By definition, the science process is an iterative process that makes an interpretation based on what's available at the time. We always make sure that we—

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Dr. Vigneault, is it always an interpretation?

[Dr. Bernard Vigneault]

When we do science advice, it's based on the data. Yes, through the peer review process, the data is integrated. That includes input from the industry. If there's new scientific information that's available, new data, it's revised on a regular basis, as need be, in terms of the biology of the species or if there's fundamentally new information.

A classic example of that is that for several stocks we were able to develop models that predict the trajectory of the stock. Those models use all of the information that's available from the past to make the best output. Sometimes that changes the forecast from year to year, based on the latest scientific information that's available. That's part of the science process. That's why the major stocks are reviewed on a regular basis through peer review.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Okay.

Your advice is provided to the minister in making decisions on quota, and it's always interesting. When the decision is to increase the quota, everybody agrees with the science. When the recommendation is to cut the quota, that's when the different opinions come forward.

On the information that you receive from fishers, you used.... I'm quoting you, but not directly. You provide the fisher information, and it goes as part of your briefing to the minister. Do you put an opinion in that as well on the fishers' advice you received or the data they received?

[Dr. Bernard Vigneault]

Thank you for the question.

I was referring to the summary of the fisheries management-led advisory committee. First, the science sector is not involved. It's a neutral summary of the inputs that were received. When we provide science advice, the industry representatives provide expertise to the peer review, and that's part of the consensus-based advice that's produced after the peer review process.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Maybe Mr. Hardy could answer this, or you, Dr. Vigneault, in the short time I have left.

Currently, we have two fisheries shut down in the gulf region, the mackerel fishery and the spring herring fishery. Are you confident that your information has no gaps in the data you collected prior to making that recommendation to the minister? Are you confident that the information you have accurately reflects the state of the fishery?

[Matthew Hardy]

Thank you for the question.

Yes, absolutely we are confident in the level of rigour that was applied to both of those stocks in the peer review process in determining the state of the stock and providing that information to the minister based on the best available information. In both those cases, industry information and contribution to those processes in terms of data and in terms of their views on the interpretation of information are incorporated into our assessment as part of the package that goes up to the minister.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

We won't have time now, but could you provide to the committee the exact percentage? How much of the gulf mackerel fishery and the spring herring fishery is used for commercial bait to support the lobster and crab fisheries in that area?

I know that you might not have it here, but if you could provide that to the committee, that would be great. Could you do that?

[Matthew Hardy]

Thank you for the question.

I don't have that information at my disposal—