Thank you.
Evidence of meeting #19 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was decisions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #19 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was decisions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Small. Your five minutes is up.
We'll now go to Mr. Morrissey for five minutes or less, please.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Thank you, Chair.
I want to follow up on some of my colleague Mr. Hardie's questions. He made a reference to “duelling science”.
My question would be to Mr. Riddell primarily. Would you comment on what I see as both science opinions being right? I say this because you hear conflicting views from science. Often the science attached to organizations outside of DFO appears to question the science within DFO, which is government.
Is there a possibility that the science from both groups may be right but interpreted differently?
1:05 p.m.
Science Advisor, Pacific Salmon Foundation
Frequently in the development of new methodologies and new information, you do have differences of opinion in science. Nonetheless, in fully objective science and dialogue, you work through those differences because, if it's a difference in methodology, you can evaluate it through research.
We frequently jump to conclusions that they are opposed because they are different groups with different opinions, but that's not how science should progress. It really progresses from starting with an understanding. Now if we have a difference of opinion, then the scientific methodology established globally allows you to study through research, and to develop the hypothesis and the question and the methodology, and to conduct the research and to draw your conclusions.
One of the things that we found through the risk assessment is that this notion of consensus in science is very bad. If it evolves from good information, then that's a benefit, but you should not force a consensus in any way. That is doing a huge disservice to the ministers of fisheries or forestry and anything else. They have the responsibility to understand the uncertainties, as well. That's where the management of policy comes into play, not in the science.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Thanks for your comment on that. I agree, because in a previous meeting, when the scientific branch of DFO appeared before the committee, they referenced from time to time that often there is not agreement on the science.
I've been on this committee since 2015 and regardless of the study this committee has been doing, we've had scientists with reputable backgrounds, representing different organizations, quite often giving conflicting testimony before this committee. It's not the first time I've heard the comment that DFO is structurally broken. If it's structurally broken as it relates to science...because this study is not on the management. It's how science is used to provide information to the ministry to make key management decisions. When you get into these, every time you make a decision, there's somebody happy and there are quite a few unhappy. The ones who are unhappy will present their case, backed up by some peer review or scientific review, saying why they're right and the scientists at DFO had it wrong.
Could you comment?
1:05 p.m.
Science Advisor, Pacific Salmon Foundation
My comment is what I just said. There isn't any question that what you're referring to has been a very substantial evolution in the methodology of studying fish health. There is a classical approach to fish health, where we see the expression of disease and we go back and try to determine the cause of that disease. The SSHI used, really, tools that were developed by the human genome program, where we seldom have expression of disease without a vector, so we should be able to sample for the vectors that we know. We use DNA technologies that are state of the art, and we can sample huge numbers of fish to look at the role of disease in populations. We start by understanding the distribution of the causes of disease.
I would still say that, if there are differences within the outcome or methodologies within DFO, the DFO scientists are perfectly capable of working this out. You do it through methodological approaches to study those differences. You have to have the facilities for that, and you have to have the resources, but very seldom is one scientist dead wrong. There are famous examples of this, where people are wrong or have misled others. That is not the case of what you're talking about here. There is just emerging technologies and knowledge that have to be taken into account as information changes through time—and as the environment changes. Climate change is going to introduce new issues for us.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Climate change would also impact the acquired knowledge from the first nations community as well. Would it not?
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Morrissey. Your time is up.
We'll now go to Mr. Arnold for five minutes or less, please.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll start with Mr. Zeman again, if I could.
Mr. Zeman, in the years you have spent trying to access DFO science or the science used by other government entities for making decisions, has there ever been an instance where it was appropriate that the science was not disclosed?
1:10 p.m.
Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation
The answer to that is no. I personally don't think there is a time when it's appropriate to not disclose science about salmon or fish health to Canadians. That would be the same with my organization. Science is what leads us to good decisions. Not disclosing science is what leads us to bad decisions. Even going back to this business of “duelling science”, that is very fair, and it's happening in this world, but I would again challenge the thought that DFO science is still getting out appropriately or whether that science has already been fettered. I think that's the overarching issue we're coming to. There are good scientists in DFO. Their science is not getting out.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you.
Are there instances where the science should be kept from the people whose taxpayer dollars funded that science?
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Okay.
Do you see a necessity for Canadians, like the members you represent, to support and have confidence in DFO science activities? Should your members—
1:10 p.m.
Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation
We're really talking about a public institution. You all represent Canadians, and you're here to talk about big words like “accountability” and “transparency” and “evidence-based decision-making”. We are not in a place with this ministry where we can do any of those things. It's just simply not a part of today's reality.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you.
I'll switch to Mr. Riddell now.
Both you and Mr. Bateman have long experience and both of you can maybe answer this.
In your experience, would you describe whether or not there is an understanding and direction from upper management within the department as to what science research is needed in order to make well-advised decisions in the process? In other words, is there direction from upper management, or knowledge and experience in upper management, to understand what research is needed for the decision process?
1:10 p.m.
Science Advisor, Pacific Salmon Foundation
Maybe I can start.
First off, I think you'd have to qualify your question further, in the sense that it really would depend on the topic of concern. Yes, there is no question that there are good science advisers within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It's a matter of who is determining what the priority to address is, with limited funding and time and people and so on, and how you go about it.
Previously in the science branch, when I was within the department, we would hold annual science review meetings and we would talk about where the money was invested and what the particular priorities were that we were going to invest in.
When Mr. Taylor was still in the commercial fishing business, we would have meetings and would fill our boardroom with industry advisers to talk about the issues they had and what was uncertain and what was poor data. There are lots of good people in the department to determine this.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Science Advisor, Pacific Salmon Foundation
We don't really have much of an industry anymore, to be honest.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Okay. Thank you.
In the little remaining time I have here, I want to switch now to Mr. Staley.
Can you tell us, Mr. Staley, what the status of the Fraser Salmon Management Council's science capacity is?
1:10 p.m.
Biologist, Fraser Salmon Management Council
Our capacity is basically just four or five professional biologists, including me, who work part-time for the Fraser Salmon Management Board and the Fraser Salmon Management Council. This is after two and a half years of an agreement with the Crown to make joint decisions on fisheries management and to support those with the technical facts.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you.
Does the Fraser Salmon Management Board have the capacity to fulfill the functions that it was assigned in the Fraser Salmon Collaborative Management Agreement, the FSCMA, in 2019?