Evidence of meeting #34 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 information.
A video is available from Parliament.
As an Individual
As you've restated, my information may not be current on mackerel stocks, but my understanding of the mackerel science—
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
I'm more on your experience of how there may be a disconnect between the scientific arm and the industry on that resource.
As an Individual
The disconnect is the gap between what the fish harvesters see in terms of mackerel abundance.... They see good abundance. They see good catch rates. They see good-sized mackerel. The science has been saying for a very long time that there's no indication that there's a spawning biomass that can support that kind of fishery. That includes the lack of spawning and the lack of recruitment. That's my understanding.
I again reiterate that my information may be a little dated, but what I would say is that, if the science advice had been right when we first started to hear about this 10 years ago or more, and with the mackerel that's been taken since by the Americans and by the Canadian fishermen, there would be none left, and that's not the case. This year there's a significant abundance of mackerel.
Of course, as you've indicated, there's not much of a commercial catch, but there's a significant abundance of mackerel available and visible around the shorelines.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Morrissey. Your time has gone just a little bit over.
We'll now go to Madame Bérubé for two and a half minutes or less, please.
Bloc
Sylvie Bérubé Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Knight, in your opinion, how has the Scientific Integrity Policy influenced the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat process?
As an Individual
Would you be able to clarify your question a little bit in terms of which policy you're talking about that's affecting the decisions?
Bloc
Sylvie Bérubé Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
I'm talking about the science policy of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
As an Individual
I don't know if I'm in a current position, really, to answer that question, but I'll offer an attempt to answer the question for the member.
I think part of the departmental policy that affects the guidance of how science offers its advice is a precautionary approach. Part of that precautionary approach policy is that, in the absence of clear scientific advice, we should err on the side of caution and make the reductions to ensure that stocks are protected. That's a good policy.
As I said earlier, when we do have that uncertainty and when it's affecting livelihoods, or when the potential cuts affect the livelihoods of harvesters, then I think we need to really redouble our efforts to get greater certainty about what the real advice is and what the real situation is.
I hope that answers your question.
Bloc
Sylvie Bérubé Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
How does the secretariat's process concretely deal with differing interpretations of research and scientific evidence?
Earlier you said that fishers had suffered a reduction in their quotas, although it is well known that they are currently experiencing insecurity. What are the shortcomings of the department, not only in terms of science, but also in terms of the human aspect with regard to the fishers?
As an Individual
Thank you.
That's a good question as well, because it's the human side of things. From a DFO science perspective, they, like all organizations I'm sure, are struggling to find the right people to put in all of these positions, so that's a bit of a challenge. They'll need to work harder in the future, like every other sector of industry across Canada, to find the right people to go into the positions.
That equally applies to the human side when it comes to the fish harvesters, because there is a human consequence when there are reductions in the fishery. There are livelihoods that are impacted. There are families that are impacted. There are businesses that can't pay their bills.
I hope I've answered your question on one side of the equation or the other, but in both cases there's a human side to it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you.
We'll go to Ms. Barron for two and a half minutes, please.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Chair.
My question again is for Mr. Knight.
Mr. Knight, I appreciate your bringing up the decisions that were or weren't made prior to the cod moratorium in Newfoundland and shedding a bit of light on that.
As I mentioned earlier to you, personally, I'm from Newfoundland, and my family decided to move from one coast to the next in response to the cod moratorium in the early 1990s. Clearly, the cod moratorium had impacts on many, not just the fishers on the water but the communities surrounding there as well, as you also mentioned.
I do see some themes of similar decision-making processes happening today to what we saw back then, and it concerns me. I'm wondering if you can speak to the cod moratorium specifically and what we've learned from it. What should we be doing differently now that it has happened to ensure we don't have a repeat of these circumstances?
As an Individual
That's a very difficult question given the enormity of the consequences of getting science advice wrong and the enormity of the impact of the closure of the northern cod fishery and the other groundfish fisheries that occurred across Atlantic Canada in the early 1990s.
I think there has been a lot learned since that time. I think there are lots of better processes. There's the implementation of the precautionary approach, and there is a lot better engagement now with fish harvesters, albeit more room required for improvement. There are many examples, I think.
Mr. Nash mentioned that the halibut fishery is not so good in his area this year. The halibut fishery, for example, in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and the south coast of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland has been very well managed. There is very good industry participation with science, and industry has taken ownership of that resource and is helping science. I think that's one example where there has been major improvement in how science is done and how it benefits the participants in the fishery.
NDP
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
You're right on the mark for your two and a half minutes.
If you look at the clock, you'll see our first hour of testimony has expired. I want to say a special thank you to Mr. Nash and Mr. Knight for giving us the value of their experience here today.
We'll suspend for a couple of minutes to set up with the officials for the last hour.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Welcome back, everyone, for the second hour of the continuation of our study on the science at DFO.
We are now joined, in person and virtually, by five officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Back again we have Mr. Adam Burns, acting assistant deputy minister, fisheries and harbour management. We have, here in person, Arran McPherson, assistant deputy minister, ecosystems and oceans science. Online, we have Sarah Murdoch, senior director, Pacific salmon strategy transformation. We have Rebecca Reid, regional director general, Pacific region; and Doug Wentzell, regional director general, Maritimes region.
We will now proceed with opening remarks from the department. I believe Ms. McPherson is doing the opening five minutes.
Please go ahead when you're ready.
Dr. Arran McPherson Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Oceans Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. It’s my pleasure to be joining you today here in Ottawa on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people to discuss science conducted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
My name is Arran McPherson and I am the assistant deputy minister responsible for DFO’s Ecosystems and Oceans Science sector.
I am joined today by Adam Burns, acting assistant deputy minister responsible for DFO’s national Fisheries and Harbour Management program, and Rebecca Reid, regional director general, responsible for regional operations, including the Science program in DFO’s Pacific Region.
She is joined by Neil Davis, regional director in DFO’s Pacific Region, responsible for the Fisheries Management program, and Sarah Murdoch, senior director, responsible for leading the implementation of the Pacific Salmon Strategy Initiative.
I am also joined by Doug Wentzell, regional director general, responsible for regional operations including Science in DFO’s Maritimes Region.
Our thoughts remain with all those affected by Hurricane Fiona in Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec.
DFO’s science sector is made up of scientists, biologists, technicians, engineers and many others who work in labs, in the field and in offices across the country. Our researchers are widely recognized, both nationally and internationally, for their expertise and leadership in ocean and fisheries science.
DFO’s science sector also encourages researchers to lead and to actively participate in domestic and international science organizations, committees and forums in order to share their Canadian expertise and gain knowledge on other international best practices that can be applied within their own research programs and in the advice that the DFO science sector generates for decision-makers. In 2021, DFO researchers published more than 625 papers in external scientific journals. Over the past five years, their works have been cited in over 22,000 other scientific articles worldwide.
Our research program includes fisheries science, aquaculture science, ecosystem and biodiversity science, climate change and ocean science, as well as hydrography and biotechnology science. The success of these research programs could not be accomplished without our important collaborations with domestic and international partners, including other government departments, industry, academia, non-governmental organizations, indigenous partners and communities, and other governments.
The work of DFO’s science sector includes the collection of long-term scientific datasets, research, as well as the provision of timely and objective peer-reviewed science advice that meets the Government of Canada’s changing needs and priorities.
The focus of DFO's science research programs is directly influenced by the department’s mandate, the Government of Canada priorities and the DFO management’s decision-making needs. Research takes time to complete, so it is necessary to understand the priorities of our management counterparts in the department to be able to anticipate the types of research that's needed to address the future questions they may ask.
Science plays a key role in the department’s decision-making process and is considered by decision-makers alongside socio-economic considerations, relevant policies, stakeholder consultations, as well as the contributions from indigenous communities, which are gathered by other sectors within the department.
The peer-reviewed science advice that's provided for decision-making is not the perspective of a single researcher, nor is it based on a single paper. It is generated through the Canadian science advisory secretariat, where scientists debate and consider the weight of evidence to arrive at a consensus-based conclusion. This process encourages healthy debate, includes expertise from both inside and outside of government, generates full and open discussions and ensures the integrity of the science advice by ensuring that multiple points of view are considered.
Over the past several years, DFO science has strengthened this process to underscore the value of providing impartial advice to inform decision-making. We continue to look for opportunities to innovate and be more efficient in order to provide the best, most timely and robust advice possible.
I am incredibly proud of the work of our scientists. The work they do every day helps us to better understand the state of our oceans, how they’re changing and the impact this may have on our fisheries and their ecosystems.
I'd like to thank you for the invitation to appear today. We're happy to answer any questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you for that. You're half a minute under time, so we'll save that for questions.
We will now go to Mr. Arnold for six minutes or less, please.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the officials for coming in today as we wrap up this study.
It was interesting to hear from the DFO officials initially describing the science program within DFO as being a science-based department with science integrity being a key piece to that, and then expert witness testimony throughout the study has drawn that into question.
I'll start with Mr. Burns if I could. Dr. Mona Nemer, the chief science adviser for Canada, told the committee that DFO has introduced a conflict of interest requirement for participants in the CSAS process. When was the requirement introduced?
Adam Burns Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Fisheries and Harbour Management, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I will actually pass that to my colleague Arran McPherson, who is the ADM responsible for that.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Oceans Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The conflict of interest policy, as well as our participation policy, codified what was already a best practice in many of our CSAS processes across the country, and codified that participants who come to our meetings are in fact there as impartial experts bringing their expertise and not a consideration of the impacts of decisions.
Conservative
Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Oceans Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
They were published in 2021 on our website.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Who is responsible for vetting the CSAS participants' declarations?