Fisheries Committee on March 23rd, 2026

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Does that mean cutting scientists is a way to improve things? You say you’re improving and modernizing your operations. Is cutting jobs a way to modernize and improve things?

[Niall O'Dea]

Sometimes, talent needs to be reassigned to different jobs.

I can ask my colleague to tell you a little more about the approach we're taking with our investments in science.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Actually, my question is just about human resources, since 20 jobs have been cut. I don't want the same answers the minister gave us regarding investments in science.

You said human resources needed to be reassigned. Does that mean those who have lost their jobs are being assigned to other positions? That is what “reassigned” means. Have these people been reassigned elsewhere?

I don't know, you just talked about it. I hadn't planned on asking that question.

[Joanne Garrah, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ecosystems and Oceans Science, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you for the question.

I can speak to a number of different things. Certainly, within the department, we were asked to look at our expenditures as part of the government's expenditure reduction exercise. That included all aspects of the department, as well as the Maurice Lamontagne Institute.

I can give reassurances, as the minister did, that science continues to be an integral and critical part of the department. We were very sensitive to how we made cuts—specifically, those to science. Generally, we focused those cuts by looking at opportunities either to modernize our work or to stop or wind down activities when we felt that the program had achieved its objectives or that there were other data sources available to it. This applied to that facility, as it did to others.

In some cases, it meant we were simply winding down activities. This had impacts on staff. In other cases, it meant that we were able to align staff to key priorities within the department. In some cases, it meant that they were moved into other activities within their roles.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Would it be possible to get the details in writing—

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I apologize Mrs. Gill, but your time's up.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

I'll come back to it later.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I know time's flying by, but you'll get another turn to ask questions.

Next, we'll go to Mr. Arnold for five minutes.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the officials.

There's quite a group of you here this morning.

I was appalled at the minister's inability to answer questions this morning. She repeatedly said that there would be no cuts to science, yet we see significant cuts in science programs, in habitat restoration programs and in the salmon enhancement program.

How could the minister say there would be no cuts to science when we see all of these cuts across different levels of this department?

[Niall O'Dea]

I'll perhaps explain what we see in the main estimates, which of course is the topic of our conversation today.

There are shifts in spending seen from main estimates to main estimates that are reflected in what's before the committee today. A number of our science programs receive significant investment through various temporary programming, which can be reflected in both main estimates and supplementary estimates decisions throughout the year. Differences in main estimates to main estimates do not necessarily reflect the full balance of decision-making with respect to science investments to be made over the course of the coming fiscal year.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

These were temporary programs, but the genomics lab was not a temporary program. Is that correct?

[Niall O'Dea]

The genomics lab has existed for some time. I can affirm that.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

The minister said there would be no cuts to science, yet the lead of the genomics program at the lab in Nanaimo has been given notice that they would be terminated. How is that not a cut to science? Square that circle for me and for Canadians who want to know.

[Joanne Garrah]

Certainly, I understand the sensitivity, given the importance of science to the portfolio and to the department.

I would say that the minister is correct in her statement in the sense that science remains a critical part of the department. We had to make decisions within the program as to how we align those resources within science. In some circumstances, this means we have to realign activities based on key priorities.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

You're not explaining why the lead of that very important program has been cut. That is a science cut. If the lead of the program is terminated, explain how it is not a cut.

[Joanne Garrah]

I would say a couple of things in terms of information.

First of all, I'm not going to speak to the circumstances of an individual. Those are very personal decisions that have a great impact on our employees, and this is not the forum in which I want to communicate that information.

Generally, as at all times within the program, we have to do our best to align our resources with the government's key priorities. In some cases, this meant we were winding down activities to focus our resources on the key priorities within the sector.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

I want to go to a question that the minister said you could answer.

Are you doing a comparative analysis of the new monitoring methods versus the established methods, which have been in place for decades, to ensure that the new monitoring methods would be reliable?

[Joanne Garrah]

I'll speak to a couple of things.

I'll say this right off the bat: We use a variety of different techniques to gather information in support of science assessments. Monitoring is an important component of science assessments, and this will continue to be the case. It will take many different forms within the department.

I don't have the specific data you're referring to, so it's difficult for me to respond to that.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

I'll give you the specific data.

You've had stream monitoring cuts because you're going to use new AI systems. That is what we've been told. Have the comparatives been done between those two programs?

We've also heard about the shrimp trawl sector on the west coast. On the DFO test vessel, they refuse to adapt their catch net to one that would work. They're told they can't use it because it's not the method that's been used for 30 years, and they don't have a comparative analysis.

Has a comparative analysis been done between the new proposed programs and the existing programs? It's a simple question. Has the analysis been done?

[Joanne Garrah]

Yes.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

If not, you can provide it in a written response to the committee.

[Joanne Garrah]

I'll go back to your earlier question related to monitoring. Monitoring is and will remain a—

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

No, my current question is, has the comparative analysis been done? If you can't provide that now, say so and provide it in writing afterward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Can you provide a short answer? We are at time.

[Joanne Garrah]

Monitoring is and will continue to be an important part of the program. It's difficult for me to respond without the data in front of me, but a normal part of our science activity is to review how we do our business and to identify whether there are more modern ways to conduct the activity.