No, this is substantially different. The previous motion asked how the minister applies scientific advice to ministerial decisions. This one asks how the minister applies data and advice provided by the department and other government departments. This one also specifies how many witnesses at a minimum we should hear from at this committee. We were asked for further definition or a narrowing of the scope of that previous motion; we believe the current motion has done so.
Over the past six years, I can't think of a study undertaken by this committee that did not touch on the science or the need for science, a need that I believe all parties recognize. I didn't support everything in budget 2016, but I welcomed the investment in DFO science because I know how important DFO science is, and still is today, to the conservation and rebuilding of our major stocks, especially Pacific salmon. However, in the past six years, that major investment in DFO science since 2016 hasn't delivered the results that the fisheries need and the results that Canadians who depend on those fisheries need.
I would draw the member's attention to the testimony we heard in the last Parliament, which warned us that “we can't manage what we don't measure. We're not monitoring enough and we're not measuring enough.”
In the last Parliament, that wasn't the only testimony our committee received that should have drawn our attention to DFO science. My understanding is that science is the ruler that the department and the government use to measure the state of stocks, the quality of habitats, and threats. We've been told that adequate funding is in place and we are told that appropriate plans and strategies are in place, but despite this, we're not seeing the results we need in many of our fisheries. Rather, we're seeing the exact opposite, as stocks continue to decline.
In the last Parliament we also heard that the government's reinterpretation of spot prawn tubbing regulations did not have a sound scientific basis, despite the assertion by DFO and the minister that the reinterpretation was based on science and conservation. It seems that the government has now pulled back its reinterpretation, but the damage has been done. Harvesters, retailers and supply chains, all of which employ Canadians, have been shaken. The confidence of Canadians in their federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans has also been shaken. These are just two examples.
I'm glad that the member for Egmont pressed for clarity in the motion at the last meeting, because I do want all members to be clear on what this motion seeks to achieve and why it's of value to this committee and the work that we aspire to do and provide to Canadians. In the coming Parliament, I assure you that every single study we undertake together as a committee will touch on the science and DFO science. I see great value in undertaking this study early in this Parliament to inform our understandings of DFO science and the science process in the department that is meant to inform the minister's decisions. We all want sound decisions based on sound science and we all want to support the scientific process that supports the minister whose decisions have significant effects on fisheries and oceans and the Canadians who depend on them.
I have more to say, but I'll allow some comments at this time.