Fisheries Committee on April 26th, 2022

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

Thank you very much, Dr. Miller-Saunders. That sounds like some really vital information for us to have, to understand and to be able to use in decisions around how to best move forward with fish farms, so I appreciate that information.

You mentioned the story around the process here. I wanted to share a bit about what Bob Chamberlin shared around the CSAS process. Specifically, he said that, basically, at every step of the way in the process, in the steering committee, in the terms of reference, in the discussion paper and in the peer review process, there was undue influence by industry as they could select who will participate in the peer review process.

I'm being confusing, but I'm wondering if you can share a bit around whether you agree or not that the process that we currently have in place can impede our ability to access timely scientific information, when we have a peer review process that is heavily weighted by industry and perhaps those who may have conflict in the future with the decisions that are being made.

[Dr. Kristi Miller-Saunders]

Yes, I think my comments on this have been made public previously. I have had concerns over the inclusion, or control, of these kinds of processes by industry.

However, there is now a new conflict of interest document that goes with the CSAS process, and I am hoping that this may resolve some of those issues into the future. That only came out in 2021.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

Before I go to Mr. Arnold, I want to check with our witnesses to make sure they're okay with staying a little longer, because we lost time earlier. I know I mentioned that we'd get our full time, but I didn't take into account your schedules at that time.

Is that still okay? I'm seeing nodding.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today on this study that I put forward for the committee. I want to start off with Ms. Leblanc, if I could.

Ms. Leblanc, you made several statements in your letter to the deputy minister, Timothy Sargent, last November. My recollection is that you gave examples of scientific advice that was meddled with after it had passed through the scientific peer review.

You've stated today that, here as a representative of DFO, you're not able to comment on that. I believe that you were invited as a witness as a member of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. If we were to invite you back as a representative of that organization, would you be able to comment and give answers regarding those comments you made?

[Judith Leblanc]

Thank you for the question.

In the current context, I was invited as a DFO employee and science advisor. We would have to consult the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada to determine who could testify in another context. Unfortunately, I cannot comment on this situation today.

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

Thank you.

I will switch my questions now to Dr. Miller-Saunders.

Dr. Miller-Saunders, over the years, how have your scientific work and reports been received by the international scientific community versus the Canadian science community versus DFO? Have there been differences in how your work and reports have been received in those different communities?

[Dr. Kristi Miller-Saunders]

Yes, there is a vast difference in how my research has been taken by the department compared with how it's been taken internationally. I'm repeatedly asked to collaborate on international studies that employ the kinds of technological approaches that I have employed and developed as a scientist in Canada while working for Fisheries and Oceans, and it's fairly rare that I've been asked to employ those technologies within my department.

I do collaborate extensively with universities, with the Pacific Salmon Foundation, and with affiliates in Norway and in other parts of Europe as well as the U.S. It has been a frustration, I have to say, in my scientific career to be much less valued in my own department than I am internationally.

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

Thank you for that.

A Federal Court decision last Friday set aside the government's Discovery Islands decision that was issued in December of 2020. That decision was issued without scientific reasons. In your opinion, was there or is there a scientific basis for the Discovery Islands decision announced in December 2020?

[Dr. Kristi Miller-Saunders]

I'm not privy to the information that the minister would have been provided with, so I really can't speak to the basis of how she made her decision.

Certainly, the strategic salmon health initiative, which I collaborated on with Dr. Brian Riddell of the Pacific Salmon Foundation, has identified specific evidence that would suggest that at least two pathogens, piscine orthoreovirus and tenacibaculum maritimum, may pose more than a minimal risk, but both of those agents were part of the CSAS process that did declare that there was a consensus decision with very high uncertainty of no more than a minimal risk. However, we have two papers coming out that should bring to light some new evidence that needs to be reconsidered when it comes to that risk assessment.

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

Thank you.

Again for you, Dr. Miller-Saunders, why do you think the Discovery Islands decision was announced without scientific reasons to support it?

[Dr. Kristi Miller-Saunders]

I can only guess that the science that was provided to the minister would be the seven CSAS documents, reports that were prepared that all declared no more than a minimal risk with a high degree of uncertainty. Based on those assessments, there would likely be no reason to suggest that there was a scientific basis.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold. You're right on your time, or just a little over.

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

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for attending.

I want to talk about the terms of reference that would be in place when a study is done and when science is brought in. Who actually sets the terms of reference and the scope of the study?

Mr. Vigneault, perhaps we'll start with you.

[Dr. Bernard Vigneault]

Thank you very much for the question.

I assume the member is referring to the peer review advice, rather than the actual research project—

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I'm not talking about the peer review.

I'm asking who decides what the scientists in your group will study, and who decides the scope and nature of the study? I have the Discovery Islands work in mind when I ask this question.

If your scientists are assigned to do something, who sets the parameters of the study?

[Dr. Bernard Vigneault]

Thank you for the clarification.

The parameters of the scientific study itself—the proposal—are led and decided on by the research scientists and the scientists of the department.

What is set, for the management of the science, are the priorities we would like to address through research or monitoring proposals. Some of the priorities come from specific proposals to the Government of Canada, such as the investment in science needed to support the fish stock provisions. With others, we have a bit more flexibility within the existing envelope, so we try to adjust the priorities in consultation with our client stakeholders and communicate that to the research community. They, in turn, then develop the proposal that will support the initiation of a research study.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

You indicated earlier in a comment that you're looking for the science to support the decision. Isn't that getting it backwards? A decision needs to have some science behind it, but the way you framed it made it sound like, “Here's the decision. Now let's go and find the science to support the decision.”

Clearly, that couldn't be the case, right?

[Dr. Bernard Vigneault]

The idea for how we prioritize our work is that the type of science endeavour we do is targeted at answering specific questions or management objectives. The easy example, with which we're all familiar, is fish stock assessment. We know that, on a regular basis, we have to reassess the health of the stock and provide scientific evidence for the management to articulate a proposition. That is what I mean.

It's not that we derive everything we do from a specific decision. Generally speaking, it's the sum of our monitoring and research endeavours that gets integrated into specific science advice or peer review. That's the basic end goal of most of our science activities.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I want to go back to the Discovery Islands work that was done.

I think this would be a question for Dr. Miller-Saunders.

They were presented with a high level of uncertainty. I'm asking you for an opinion here. Would this not put big, bright lights on the precautionary principle? That is, if there's a high degree of uncertainty, we should err on the side of protecting wild stocks. This doesn't appear to have happened here.

[Dr. Kristi Miller-Saunders]

Thank you for the question.

Uncertainty is a means to reflect incomplete scientific information, or studies and interpretations that may contradict one another. Where there's uncertainty, there's an expectation that policies will be more precautionary, especially in cases where there's a resource in crisis. Therefore, in cases where risk is determined to be minimal but there's a high degree of uncertainty, there should be a strong motivation to fill the knowledge gaps and re-evaluate the assessment of risk upon receipt of new information.

Until that time—until such time when uncertainty is declared to be low—managers need to proceed with caution in putting a consensus judgment into action.

In short, yes, there is a need to apply the precautionary principle where there's a high degree of uncertainty.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie. Your time is up.

We'll now go to Madame Desbiens, for two and a half minutes, please.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Miller-Saunders, does your research focus only on compiling and analyzing data, or is there also a team looking at ways to intervene to recover the resource, to reactivate and protect it, as well as to have predictability, given an impending demise of the resource? Are you working on both fronts?

[Dr. Kristi Miller-Saunders]

I do. A lot of my research focuses on work in wild organisms in their natural environment. However, we do bring certain questions into the lab, largely related to the impact of stress on fish and the impact of climate change. We can show, within a laboratory setting, what amount of a given stressor may impose stress and may result in mortality in a lab, and we can go out and measure those kinds of effects in fish in the field.

Most of my work is currently known in the area of pathogens, but a lot of my program also looks at environmental stress and climate change. We use a combination of laboratory study and field-based observations.

It would be brilliant to be able to do large-scale manipulations in the field, where one could manipulate a factor that one thinks may be causing mortality. This type of work has been done with sea lice in Europe, where they have prophylactically treated juvenile wild salmon.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Pardon me for interrupting, Ms. Miller-Saunders.

Do you have all the material resources and budgets you need to conduct impactful studies that could have a significant effect and allow you to sound a timely alarm?