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.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you.
I'll move on now to Mr. Zeman. I have only a few seconds left here.
As the leader of a conservation organization with resource users, fishers and so on, can you tell us why it is important for DFO to provide Canadians with the science that the department uses for making management decisions?
12:10 p.m.
Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation
Absolutely. I think all of the witnesses.... I feel like we're all saying the same thing.
When there is good science and it affects DFO management, that science is hidden or edited or suppressed from Canadians. Everyone is scratching their heads, going, “Why are Pacific salmon headed for extinction, and why are the interior Fraser steelhead? We have 68 fish in one river and 32 in another. Why is that happening?”
The public can't know that, because DFO will not share the science. That's why it's important.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Arnold.
We'll now go to Mr. Hardie for six minutes or less, please.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all of the witnesses. I think we're going to get a lot of information here today.
My first question will go to Mr. Zeman, but I want Dr. Whitney to know that I'm going to ask her about science and other factors that need to be considered in ministers' decisions.
Mr. Staley, I'm also going to ask you about the essential elements of truly objective research, including the development of reporting.
First, though, Mr. Zeman, in our long history of all of the hearings that we've had, it seems that when the minister comes down with a decision—we're going to fish or we're not going to fish—the people who want to fish will come up with their own science when the decision is that we're not fishing. The reverse is also true.
How do we deal more effectively with the whole issue of duelling science when it comes to these decisions?
12:15 p.m.
Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation
I think, when you look at the structure of DFO, the challenge is that management oversees science. In a sense, then, management trumps science. If you want independent science, you're going to have to make an arm of DFO that provides science that's shared with everyone. The way it works right now is that it is filtered through DFO management, through the RDG, through the minister's office and up to the minister. I can tell you that the minister right now, even, is not getting the science that's being provided by DFO science.
This is an issue about the separation of church and state. Making decisions is one piece. The science is the other. The science has to be clear and unfettered, whether DFO management likes it or not.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, Mr. Zeman.
Dr. Whitney, my question for you is this. Put yourself in the minister's shoes: You're the minister. You get the science, but what else do you think you should consider when it comes to making decisions that, let's face it, can affect either the health of the stock or the livelihood of the community?
12:15 p.m.
Program Director, Fisheries Management and Science, Central Coast Indigenous Resource Alliance
Thank you, Mr. Hardie.
I think that's exactly the problem, and I think Jesse is pointing it out well. With ministerial discretion and the final decision, it should be directly informed by science in this case. I think, as Mr. Taylor spoke about, we're having those decisions influenced after the fact. I think that's the reality that we're all speaking to here today. In the past, there have been advisory groups from various stakeholder sectors that have had undue influence on the final decision that we see realized in management. That's exactly what we still continue to see today.
I will say as well that there is significant bias in the various groups that have that influence on the minister and the decisions she makes. That is a consistent problem that we see, specifically comparing, for example, the influence that indigenous groups have over decisions in management versus industry.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Don't you think it's fair that stakeholders...? Let's face it, the name “stakeholders” means that they have a material interest in what the minister decides. Should they not have a seat at the table and, if you like, an oar in the water when it comes to these decisions?
12:15 p.m.
Program Director, Fisheries Management and Science, Central Coast Indigenous Resource Alliance
That depends on your paradigm.
I think that we here at the panel today support science-based decision-making. It is critical to the success of supporting our fish and, therefore, the success of our fishers long term; whereas if we're just supporting fisheries in the short term, that influence is very problematic.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you.
Mr. Staley, outline, if you as a biologist can, the essential elements of truly objective research: the development, the structure of the research project and the reporting.
12:15 p.m.
Biologist, Fraser Salmon Management Council
I'll try to do that in the context of first nations participation in these kinds of activities.
I'll choose the latter, which is how the communication of the science gets to the decision-makers. In the work I'm doing now under the Fraser Salmon Collaborative Management Agreement and the board, the model is that the DFO participants or members of the board are at the senior director levels in their region, so at least in another model, they're part of the gatekeepers for information to the minister.
This agreement calls for them, together with the first nations participants delegated to be there by their communities—and from 76 communities in this case—to meet and to try to provide consistent, connected and agreed to advice to the minister.
That model would circumvent having that level within the department providing alternative advice to the minister. It doesn't completely discourage it, but what they're saying to the participants and the other members of the board and what they're saying to the minister should be consistent. That's why—
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I think we'll have to call it at that because I think the chair is about to wave me off here.
Thank you very much.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
You could read my facial expression, Mr. Hardie. You were dead on.
We'll now go to Madame Desbiens for six minutes or less.
Go ahead, please.
April 28th, 2022 / 12:20 p.m.
Bloc
Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is for Mr. Zeman.
Do you think an ombud or auditor general who would promote scientific opinion to the Minister could be a solution?
12:20 p.m.
Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation
Yes. Having an auditor general or some sort of ombudsman would add value, but again, the structural piece in this is the separation between DFO management and DFO science.
Just to dig into the details a little bit more, the person who is in charge of species at risk within DFO actually reports to DFO management, and that is extremely uncommon in the structure of the Government of Canada. Typically species at risk people—employees or staff—and processes are separated from science.
There is always room for more independence, and I think we're hearing that people really want independence here in terms of science. The reason for that is that the current structure is broken. If we had a structure in which DFO scientists were able to do their jobs in isolation without being fettered by managers and senior managers, everything would be okay. We're all coming to different conclusions with the same fundamental problem. You have to remove DFO management from DFO science. That's the fundamental issue.
Auditors general are great. Mind you, I've filed numerous complaints with the Auditor General of Canada on this specific issue and haven't heard anything back, so I'm not sure if that system is working properly either.
12:20 p.m.
Bloc
Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
I've already talked about the capelin situation. You may not be aware of it, but we have made a lot of effort in Quebec so that the situation on the ground is taken into consideration in the ministerial decision.
Do you regularly see departmental scientists or public servants on the ground?
12:20 p.m.
Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation
Do we see scientists on the ground? That's the question, I assume.
12:20 p.m.
Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation
Yes, we do. Again, in the context of steelhead, there are scientists within DFO science who have a really good handle on steelhead, understand steelhead ecology and participated in the CSAS process.
Yes, I would say DFO scientists are competent. They know what they're supposed to be doing. They provide good advice. The problem is that the advice is not listened to. It is edited by the minister's office, it's edited by their boss or, in the most recent case, it is just not given to the public.
I think that's the challenge. It's not a competence issue, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. It's an issue of structure within DFO.
12:20 p.m.
Bloc
Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
Thank you very much.
Mr. Taylor, what do you think might be a quick solution to the department's lack of communication with scientists or its lack of consideration for them?
12:25 p.m.
Consultant and Fisheries Advisor, Watershed Watch Salmon Society
I did not receive the translation.
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Caroline Desbiens Bloc Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île dOrléans—Charlevoix, QC
What do you think would be a quick and effective solution to improve the communication of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans with and consideration for scientists? What do you think would make things better?
12:25 p.m.
Consultant and Fisheries Advisor, Watershed Watch Salmon Society
I'm sorry. Again, if that was directed to me, I'm not getting translation through.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Okay. Have you selected “English” at the bottom of your screen for the interpretation? I'm getting it interpreted in my ear, while it's being said.
12:25 p.m.
Consultant and Fisheries Advisor, Watershed Watch Salmon Society
That was good advice. I found it. Thank you.