Thank you, Dr. Nemer.
I was pleased to hear that you examine the quality of the science being provided to decision-makers, and the process. With all of your responsibilities for science in the government, I'm not sure how far you get into the mud—or your team does—in terms of science such as that conducted by DFO.
I want to use, if I could, a recent example, to understand how far your agency may go into the science. The minister recently closed the Atlantic mackerel fishery. The basis of the decision was obviously based on the science, combined with the catch numbers. Would it surprise you that the spawning science that DFO has done in the Gulf of St. Lawrence over the last decade has moved to a week earlier in the month of June, further away from the peak period of spawning on June 24?
All palegic fish, especially on spawning and migration, are water-dependent. Generally, earlier on when the science is being done, DFO is actually doing science on the spawning mass when the water is two degrees lower than when mackerel spawn. They're doing it at around 8°C rather than 10°C to 13°C degrees. As a result, they're finding a smaller and smaller biomass.
It's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you take out the results from the last decade of the sampling they're doing in the water that is colder than when mackerel normally spawn—when you eliminate that—you find that the spawning mass is actually 48% from its high in the 1980s. However, DFO is basing its decisions with that lower temperature included, which means the reporting that the biomass is only 5% of its peak in the 1980s informs the minister's decision that the stock is in trouble. They're going out too early, and they're not finding it at the same spot.
Would your department be looking into those kinds of things and analyzing whether or not the science quality is delivering what it should be?