Fisheries Committee on Jan. 18th, 2022

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

No, I won't speak to that amendment. I had a further one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead, Mr. Hardie.

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

I agree with Mr. Bachrach's amendment because the communities of Merritt and Princeton were also significantly impacted and the flood control measures there obviously are in need of repair. If we add the consideration of those other communities or other pieces of infrastructure, one meeting may not be sufficient. I'm not sure. Perhaps we can just leave it open, in the sense that if we don't cover everything we need to cover in one meeting in one two-hour stretch, the committee at that time can consider adding additional time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Could I suggest to you, Mr. Hardie, that maybe we leave it as is for now? When we get to setting the actual schedule for meetings, even though we've said it would be one meeting for this one, maybe you could propose an extra meeting or whatever at that time.

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

Sure, that's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

We've heard the proposed amendment by Mr. Bachrach, which is that we add, after the word “systems”, “in British Columbia, particularly” and then continue with “along the lower Fraser River”.

Seeing no more discussion, are we in favour of that amendment?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Go ahead, Mr. Arnold.

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

Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify that we are really speaking about only one meeting. I recall that when we were doing the Pacific salmon study, we increased the scope of that study and kept adding meetings. I would like it recorded that we are in agreement that this study would be no more than one or two meetings.

I would like to hear Mr. Hardie's understanding so that there's no question afterwards as to what a “short” study means. Could he clarify?

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

Yes, I just spoke to that a moment ago regarding the additional scope of studying some of the other communities. Because we're really only asking for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to tell us, first, if they've been consulted and, second, what kind of input they've given to the process of restoring flood control measures, I'm fairly confident that even with the additional scope, one meeting will do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie.

Seeing nothing else in the way of concern, can we vote on the motion as it has been amended by the two amendments? I don't think we need to read it out again. It's not a complicated motion.

(Motion as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Go ahead, Mr. Arnold.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move the motion for which notice was given on December 14 regarding scientific conclusions. I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of at least six (6) meetings to examine how the Department of Fisheries and Oceans develops scientific conclusions including advice that it provides to the minister and how the minister applies scientific advice to ministerial decisions;

that the committee call witnesses including the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, senior department officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and persons who have directly contributed to the department's science and science processes to testify; and

that the committee report its conclusions and recommendations to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

We've heard the text of the motion to do this particular study. Are there any comments?

Go ahead, Mr. Morrissey.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Chair, the motion is not specific on where the study would want to get to. What specifically within the science division of the department does the motion attempt to get to?

For the last six years, our government has consistently increased the financing to significantly increase the capability of the department to monitor science and data. I'm not so sure. Are we attempting to undermine or second-guess the work and the independence of the scientific branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? I have a real problem with that.

Could you speak a bit more to what the study is going to attempt to uncover?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead, Mr. Arnold.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For Mr. Morrissey, I would not want to make any presumptions about what the study may unravel or disclose. Canadians and we as members of Parliament deserve to know how the minister is making decisions and what science those decisions are based on, and to have her and the department describe that to us as parliamentarians so we can do better in our work as a committee on other studies and so we can understand what science is being used in the decision-making process.

That's the sole direction in which we would like to go with this study.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Well, it's interesting. At least we now have some science being conducted, whereas for nine years we had an eradication of the efforts to gather the science going into decisions. At least now we have a strengthened science division within the department. I believe that those reviews and that advice are always referenced, and when the minister makes decisions, those decisions become public, along with the advice that was given by the department.

I know that from time to time—and I have experienced this—fishers don't always agree, but it's important that the minister and the department have independence on the gathering of science and data. It is one area that must remain whole. It must remain impartial.

Again, I cannot support this motion in its present context, because it appears to me to be an attack on the independence of the science-gathering division of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Hardie is next.

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

Mr. Chair, there's a lot of science being conducted at any one time, a lot of research.

Could Mr. Arnold help focus this discussion and potentially the study? Was there a specific issue with the question of how science was gathered and applied in decision-making that appeared to him to be problematic?

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

In response to both Mr. Morrissey and Mr. Hardie, if the minister and the department are actually using science, I think they would be happy to come and explain how they are using that science so that we as a committee can continue to do an efficient job.

Further to Mr. Hardie, I think it would behoove the committee members to bring in witnesses who could testify either way on whether they think the application of science is sufficient and efficient for the minister's decisions.

Again, I'm not trying to draw conclusions before we even get into the study. This would simply be an opportunity for the minister and her department to describe to us how they use science and what science they use, and for us to call witnesses to hear how those science decisions, or the decisions that are based on science, are affecting them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

Mr. Hanley is next.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With all respect to Mr. Arnold, there's no premise on which to originate the motion, just as a follow-up to Mr. Hardie's point. I think there has to be a valid premise in the first place.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hanley.

Mr. Small, you had your hand up and it went down again.

Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree somewhat with the comments around the scope of the study. It seems quite broad, and I'm not quite sure if I can envision what kind of witnesses and what kind of conversation would ensue, based on the definition of the study. I wonder if there might be an opportunity to narrow the scope a bit.

Certainly the application of science is a very interesting topic, and it would be informative to hear from the department in terms of how decision-makers and advisers interpret science and base their recommendations to the minister on that science.

Some of the questions that come up for me would include how the department deals with uncertainty, how the department establishes the credibility of different studies and sources of scientific evidence and how the department balances the use of conventional science with other knowledge systems, but those are just questions that interest me. I'm not sure which questions interest the mover of the motion.

I think the motion would benefit from a bit of scope tightening so that the clerk, the chair and others really understand the direction we want to go as a committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

I have Mr. Small.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to hear from our science officials at DFO to get a better understanding of how they go about making certain decisions in developing management plans, and how they perhaps might work with other countries' science.

I'd like to know what the plan is going forward and how our science will [Technical difficulty—Editor] changing ecosystems in light of global warming. I think it would be great to get us all up to speed. There are some new committee members here, and we'd like to have a better understanding of the process.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Small.

Go ahead, Mr. Perkins.