FISH Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES PÊCHES ET DES OCÉANS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 5, 1998

• 0936

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): I would like to bring to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Our order of reference, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), is a review of the role of sciences in fisheries management.

Today we have two groups of witnesses before us. We might mention to the witnesses that we have the spokesperson for the New Democratic Party with us today, Mr. Stoffer; the spokesperson for the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr. Matthews; the associate spokesperson for the Bloc Québécois, Mr. Canuel; the spokesperson for the Reform Party of Canada, Mr. Duncan, and the associate critic, Mr. Lunn; the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Easter, from Prince Edward Island; Mr. Hubbard, the member of Parliament representing the province of New Brunswick; and, representing the Liberal Party from Ontario, Mr. Carmen Provenzano.

From the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada we have as a witness Mr. Steve Hindle, the president of the professional institute.

We also have as a witness Mr. Gus Etchegary, the former chairman of the Fisheries Council of Canada. He is also the former president of Fisheries Products Limited; he is the former chairman of the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador; and he was the Canadian commissioner to ICNAF. That dates Mr. Etchegary right back to the time when the fishing zones were invented on the east coast of Canada.

We're going to ask Mr. Etchegary to introduce the scientist he has with him. We'll ask Mr. Etchegary to start his presentation for 10 or 15 minutes. Then we go to the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada for 10 or 15 minutes in their introduction. Then we'll open the floor and we'll go to each political party for questions.

Mr. Etchegary, could you introduce your associate?

Mr. Gus Etchegary (Fisheries Forum): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, on behalf of Sandy and myself and a small group we're involved with, we'd like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the committee for the opportunity of being here.

• 0940

I'd like to present to you Mr. Sandy Sandeman, who's a retired scientist, a veteran in the business for many years. Sandy was born in Scotland, educated in Ceylon, South Africa and England, at St. Andrew's University and Memorial. He's been involved in fishery science for his whole life. Sandy was director of science in the Newfoundland region for a number of years and, in my view and in the view of many people in the fishing industry, made an enormous contribution from the fact that he was a man who had spent a lot of time at sea in his work and had probably in-depth knowledge of the Newfoundland and the Canadian east coast fisheries.

So we're kind of proud in our group, which I should tell you is a small group of concerned citizens that came together about three years ago in St. John's. Most of us are retired; a few are on the periphery, if you like. The group is represented by people who have been in the federal and provincial governments as politicians, bureaucrats, scientists and covers and fishermen. I think we figured out that all of us, collectively, have had something like 325 years in the fishery. All of us have a lot of contact with every sector of the industry, from one end to the other. Most of us have had a lot of international experience, as well as domestic and national.

This group meets once a month and we invite people like the minister of fisheries, the chairman of the FRCC, scientists and other people who are involved in fisheries to come and sit with us for about three to four hours, as we had the pleasure of yourself and Mr. Matthews some time back. So, although we're out of the fisheries directly, on a day-to-day basis, we have maintained very close contact with what's happening, again on the international, national and domestic scenes, in respect to fisheries.

What brings us together is a great deal of concern about what is happening, what has happened, where we came from, where we are and where we're going in our view. This is hopefully the kind of discussion or hopefully we'll get some queries today that will lead us in a direction to impart some of our concerns to you.

The last time I was in front of a committee—in fact, it wasn't in front of the fisheries committee—was in 1971, when 25 people from the east coast of Canada, representing every sector of the fishery, from the Canadian Saltfish Corporation, the deputy minister of fisheries for every province, representatives of all the fishery organizations, fishery unions and so on, and industry.... We were 25 people that were quite representative in 1971, in October, armed with graphic illustrations of where the fishery on the east coast of Canada was going on a toboggan. We were able to arrange, through Mr. Don Jamieson, to make a day-long presentation to the late Jack Davis, the Honourable Mitchell Sharp, and the late Don Jamieson, their staffs, all the MPs from the east coast, a whole bunch of scientists.... I remember distinctly a number of people who were on the fisheries committee.

That was in, as I say, 1971, and the presentation we made went all day and made such an impression on the three ministers that the following morning there was an abbreviated presentation made to Mr. Trudeau and eight of his senior cabinet ministers for about two and a half hours. The gist of the presentation was that from 1965, which was the peak of the build-up of the fishing effort on the east coast from foreign fishing, up to 1971-72 was in our view the period of collapse of the east coast groundfishery.

• 0945

Just to give you a couple of numbers to illustrate what was presented to these people at that time, we showed from DFO statistics that the catch per unit of effort of a 90-foot trawler between 1968 and 1971 had gone down from one tonne an hour to 800 pounds, and a gill-net used by the inshore fishermen had gone to 50 pounds per net per day down from 500 pounds per net per day. The other startling statistic was the fact that the average size of fish landed in 1965, 1967, and 1968 was in the area of four to four and a half pounds of gutted weight, and it had gone down to a shade over two pounds.

These were statistics from the department of fisheries at that time and showed clearly where ICNAF and Canadian management of the fishery was taking us. At the end of the presentation, which I can recall distinctly, because it came from an organization called SOFA—the Save Our Fisheries Association—I remember the Honourable Mitchell Sharp coming around and saying, “At last I understand what the problem is on the east coast. Not only are you getting less fish, but you're getting smaller fish.”

Mr. Chairman, that was in October 1971, and the management of Canadian fisheries on the east coast did not change. We were trying to impress people with the need to do something about what was obvious to a small child. We wanted the extension of jurisdiction to take place almost immediately and we wanted new regulatory measures to be put in place to save the resource, to stop the catching of small fish and allow them to grow to reproductive sizes and build a strong biomass for the future. It didn't happen. Seven years later we got extension of jurisdiction, by which time, Mr. Chairman, the bottom had gone out.

Since then there's a lot of blame pointed here and there, at scientists, at fishermen, at this one and that one and the other one. The fact of the matter, Mr. Chairman, is that there was no recognition of a clear illustration which was represented by 25 people who were involved on a day-to-day basis using statistics from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to show it.

Now, I could sit here, Mr. Chairman, and give you one incident after another, examples in a thousand different directions, to prove the point I'm making here and to give you the background to all of this. I'm not going to do that because what we're trying to do here today.... Sandy and I just came from eight days of sitting down with about fifty to sixty scientists from all over the eastern fishing provinces who are sitting in St. John's and deliberating at what levels to set the quotas—or not set quotas—for fisheries on the east coast.

I'm going to let Sandy expand on this, but I want to say to you that after listening to these dedicated scientists who have been working night and day for ten days to try to come up with some answers, I can honestly and truly say to you that in my humble view, the situation in respect to the management of Canadian fisheries has, if anything, from every aspect, worsened as the years have gone by.

For example, we have a situation now in St. John's in the regional office of a total erosion of the principal people who can help and guide us in the direction of restoration of this resource. We have veteran scientists who are worth the crown jewels to Newfoundland fishermen and to eastern Canadian fishermen, and they are being laid off.

• 0950

They use this beautiful word, “attrition”. I talked to a senior scientist three days ago, one of the most brilliant we have, and he's finishing in March. He's broken-hearted because he's in the middle of projects that will, without any doubt, contribute to guiding us in the right direction. Again, I'm not going to go into it too deeply, but I just want to say to you that this is the kind of thing that's happening.

The number being taken out of the system in response to this deficit financing policy is absolutely brutal. You read from senior people, almost in a gloating way, that they're meeting their objectives of laying off 350 people—350 key people out of an agency like the research department of Fisheries and Oceans, people who are our only hope in guiding us down the road.

I have one last point, Mr. Chairman, before I pass it back to you. Just to get things in perspective, we entered Confederation in 1949 with an almost virgin stock—as we term it—of fisheries on the east coast. Prior to Confederation, Newfoundland had this enormous resource, and we brought it with us into Confederation. I have taken the quotas that were still in being in 1972—this is six years after this massive foreign effort—the figures that were established by ICNAF as the quotas for the areas adjacent to Newfoundland and Labrador only. I converted them to the export value in 1997 prices. Mr. Chairman, even at that level, which was substantially below what it should be, it was worth $3 billion annually—a renewable resource.

Just to put things in perspective, I spoke with the chairman of the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board two weeks ago. In the board's estimation, Hibernia will probably be gone in 25 years, but it will have contributed $16 billion to the economy, or at least the value of the oil taken out of the ground. So here you are looking at a Hibernia that has been elevated to a new level, representing $16 billion, as opposed to a resource that was half-depleted but worth $3 billion annually and, most important of all, renewable.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I'll pass it back to you.

The Chairman: Sandy.

Mr. Edward Sandeman (Fisheries Forum): Well, Mr. Chairman, I have prepared a paper here that is a little longer than it maybe should be. I tried very hard to reduce the points that I wanted to raise, and most of them are in a sort of note form. I obviously can't go through the whole thing, but this will be passed out to you if you don't have copies now. I only brought ten copies with me. I'd like to just quickly take you through at least some of the highlights, and maybe spend five minutes or so at this.

On the first page, I'm really only pointing out a few of the facts that we all know, but I put them there because what I'm talking about here is a total fisheries management system and the requirements from it. It's not so much what it must do, but how it must do it, what is required of it. Particularly, I'm looking at the scientific point of view, which is what I've been asked to do.

• 0955

There are really four parts of the highest importance that have come out. The research side is clearly one of them. We have to know what stocks are there and what their productivity is, what their turnover rates are, etc. That is a fundamental requirement—one part of the system.

The second part of the system is the statistical part. To manage any stock we have to have good records, good statistics, on what count is taken from that stock by the various industries which are harvesting it. That is where a good statistical service comes in, one that provides accurate figures to all those who use it. Economists, politicians, and everybody use those statistics, but from a science point of view it is an absolute requirement that they be as accurate as possible.

And we have to know the whole lot of it: discards, if there are discards.... There shouldn't be, but very often there are. We need to know the quantities of fish that are thrown away. We need to know the effort used in order to catch that fish.

That is a very important part. I bring it up because the statistical service has never properly done its job as far as the fisheries of Canada are concerned. I think it's time. If we are going to work under a proper system, we have to have good back-up statistical services.

The third one, which again is a very easy one to talk about and is very difficult really to work out, is that there has to be good enforcement. It's obvious, whatever regulations have to be enforced.

But even more than that, and the reason why, I think, much of fisheries regulation, the fisheries system, has failed in the past—and we should learn from our mistakes—is the lack of political will. This is where you gentlemen come in, to ensure that enforcement is done. During the days when I was there I don't think there was one instance where a larger fishing vessel, a trawler of the offshore fleet, lost its licence, with the many infractions that occurred throughout the years. All that's required is some teeth in that and the political will to do it. This is important. If we are bringing a new system into place or trying to improve the old system, please, these things are very important.

On the second page there is a bit about the historical aspects. It's really leading into the other things I have to say. What I would like to dwell on is some of the issues and concerns Gus has mentioned, some of the issues and concerns our little group have considered.

I still have very good contacts, even if I've been away from the fisheries department for close to ten years. I still use their library. I still talk to the scientists on a daily basis. I attend some of the meetings. I have very good contacts there. What I'm saying now is my own interpretation of various things I've heard and some of the things that are really affecting the morale, the dedication, of the scientists, and so on.

Maybe the first one I should say something about is expectations. Expectations are one of the things I think somehow have gone completely off the rail. The expectations of what research can do in the field of fishery science are totally out of whack.

When a meteorologist gives a forecast for the week ahead, everybody looks at it and says, well, we'll see this time; I'll bet they are wrong. Certainly we don't expect them to give a forecast a month, two months, three months ahead, not one that has any real meaning.

If you look at economic forecasts—and you gentlemen as much as any are well used to looking at economic forecasts before the budget; they are very important—how often do those economic forecasts really work out? There are a lot of externalities. That's what makes forecasting very difficult.

It seems the expectations of the public, and everybody else, when it comes to fisheries science are totally different. What we say is the gospel: this is believable; this has to happen.

I ask you just to think of what we're trying to do in setting a TAC. In doing that we're trying to project into the future what the stock will be like in five or six years' time if we catch only this much or that much.

• 1000

When you think about it, we have no idea of how many new fish are going to join that stock. We don't know. It's impossible to know. All we can say is that provided things don't change, provided all things are the way they are now, we can reasonably expect that a TAC of such-and-such will allow the stock to rebuild or collapse or what have you. Now, that's a reasonable expectation.

There are these qualifying remarks. Conditions are applied to every statement that the scientists make: if conditions remain the same, if something else happens. But when it comes down to it people say, “Oh no, the scientists say this. It's got to be.” Consequently, of course, where's the blame always put when things don't happen? “It's those scientists”. But many people besides the scientists must take the blame.

Having said something about the expectations, I think we've got to try to change this and make the whole thing realistic. Part of the departmental mandate is to ensure that everybody knows that there are conditions attached to these TACs and so on.

Another point that has come up recently—that I suppose drives us up the wall—is the knowledge and people, the press in particular, bringing it out that scientists cheat, that they change their figures to suit the results that are wanted. That is absolute and total nonsense.

The scientific population is the same as any other population. It's a bell-shaped curve. There may be one or two at the very end of one of those curves that has done that. Certainly in 45 years I have never personally seen or heard of an instance where an individual scientist has changed anything.

I often wonder how these things come up. Why do they come up? I think if you try to look at the reasons behind what people say, there are always other agendas that people are pushing.

I listen to open-line programs occasionally, not too often. One of them that I heard the other day was saying that there is a grand conspiracy and the scientists are a part of it, that we don't want to open any of the fisheries that have been closed by the moratoria and this is a grand conspiracy, that the scientists are making sure that the data doesn't disprove, that it's got to stay shut. What absolute nonsense!

Where do people get these from? I'll tell you one reason they get them—because they're trying to push another agenda, and they want to look at other things.

Of course you all know that, because continually that's what you're faced with—different people with different agendas.

I now want to talk just for a few moments about the research itself. Here I'm afraid I'm not really familiar with the research right across Canada. The gentlemen and the lady on my right will know much more about other parts of Canada than I do.

But I do know Newfoundland and I have made it my business to know the fisheries research situation in Newfoundland. I can say nothing but that it is absolutely grim. There are many things that I can tell you, but there are a few very striking statistics and I have to put these before you. These are not statistics that are definitely hard and fast and agreed to, because I haven't been able get hold of them. You may have them here. But this is by talking to the people concerned and reading what pieces of paper I can find.

In five years the dollar resources devoted to traditional fisheries in St. John's, Newfoundland, have declined by about 40%. There have been small amounts coming back, but that's the basic decline. As of April 1997, the personnel had been reduced by 20%.

It's not the reduction that I'm concerned about; it's where the reduction has taken place to a large extent. What we have seen is that we have been losing some of the key people. I'm going to talk about research scientists in a few moments; that is very important. But in the general part, apart from research scientists, there are technical staff who do very skilled jobs, jobs that have a learning curve of several years and require a lot of experience. Just so those who aren't familiar with them will know, I'm talking about things things like age reading from otoliths, in the ear bones of fish. It's a very difficult job to do. It requires a lot of experience and a lot of training, and when one of these guys takes the package and disappears, it's chaos until we get more brought in.

• 1005

I can tell you now that the age reading, which is the backbone, one of the fundamental blocks on which all assessments are built, is slipping behind year by year for some important species.

With regard to the research scientists, the most incredible statistic of all to me, which I didn't believe when I first discovered how bad it was—and I think everybody must be concerned—is that the research scientist group will be at close to 50% of its strength by the summer of this year.

The research scientists, you have to remember, are really the key to all the research. They're the ones who plan most of the research. They're the ones who carry out most of the research. They write the papers, attend the meetings and argue about this and that, and they're the ones absolutely everything depends on. And this group of people is down to 50% of its strength in Newfoundland. It really is mind-boggling.

The other thing about the general reductions and about the research scientist one in particular is that when you build up a lab you're putting together an institute to do research. You try to build it so that you have all the disciplines that you require. It's not like it was in the old days, when a fishery scientist had to be trained to the microscope. Fishery science is now a complicated mix of all kinds of mathematics, statistics, DNA and chemistry. All these disciplines come into it, and in a laboratory you must have the correct mix so that you can answer the required questions.

So when you hire the people you carefully ensure that you're getting this mix that is required. When you fire them or get rid of them in the way they've been got rid of, there is no attention paid to the mix. It's the older people who are ready to retire; or, alternatively, it's those who are a bit younger who are prepared to get out and take a package. And that is where it is very serious. There are areas where we're lost, where there's nothing.

I'll finish up by mentioning one in particular. I can tell you that the mathematics and statistics side of the operation in Newfoundland is very thinly spread. It used to be excellent. Now it is very thinly spread and the few people are run ragged trying to do all that is required of them.

In my mind, there's another group that is tragic. I'm sure some of you are familiar with the fact that one of the aims of fisheries research is to get away from this stock-by-stock management system that we involve nowadays to managing the ecosystem so that at the same time you manage cod, you manage the capelin it feeds on. They are related and they should be managed in a related way.

Oceanography is one of the fundamental and key things that we require. We have to know the environment these animals live in and we have to know when there are changes in the environment. In Newfoundland, through the years we have built up a little core of people in oceanography who are responsible for that side of it and who work with the other scientists in task forces and teams. That group has lost 75%, I think, of their scientific staff. It's only a small group. If you lose three out of four, that's 75%, and it makes the little 25% very heavily overloaded.

The final point—and this is the final point, Mr. Chairman—concerns the loss. In Newfoundland, as part of the fisheries policy about ten or twelve years ago, I suppose, it was decided—and this happened in places other than Newfoundland—that there should be COREs, as they called them, centres of research excellence. In Newfoundland, the centre of research excellence was started, and it consisted of ten people.

• 1010

The duty of these ten people was to consider the methodologies that we used, the broader things like that, and, in particular, to look to future requirements. Now there is no CORE group. There is no one in Newfoundland looking at futures research, apart from what scientists are interested in and can do in their own spare time, which is very little nowadays. That is tragic.

I keep on uttering what other people have said about the government and its attitude towards research. Without this futures research, the country is finished. We're sunk. All we can do is drag ourselves along on the coat-tails of our southern neighbour. I don't want a Canada like that, and I don't believe you do.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to open to questions whenever you're ready.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Sandeman.

Before we go to Mr. Hindle, I want to point out that we have two additional MPs who came into this committee after the introductions started. We have Nancy Karetak-Lindell, the member of Parliament for Nunavut, from the Baffin Island area up in fishing zone zero. And from British Columbia, representing the Liberal Party, we have Sophia Leung.

We now go for an opening statement from the organization that represents 1,200 research scientists, biologists, chemists, and other professionals employed by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. We'll hear from the president of that organization, Steve Hindle.

Mr. Steven Hindle (President, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada): Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

Before I go into our brief—you have it in front of you, with the green covers—I'll tell you that I'm not going to read the whole brief. But I do have to take the opportunity to challenge something that was said earlier. In defence of the meteorologists who work for the Government of Canada and whom we also represent, I think you will find that their forecasts are actually fairly accurate on the whole.

The Chairman: It's the weather that's wrong.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Steve Hindle: The weather just will not cooperate with the science. It's unfortunate.

Having said that, the current inquiry that you're undertaking has led a number of our members in the department to approach the Professional Institute of the Public Service. They have asked us to speak to the committee on their behalf, for fear of what may happen if they themselves appear—and I will cover that in a little bit more depth as we go through this.

The people who have approached us have maintained that scientific counsel is ignored or diluted within Fisheries and Oceans at the decision-making level. They believe the department sanctions public and industrial use of resources without proper attention being paid to expert advice. Programs are being cut and laboratories are being closed despite evidence that these cuts will have a negative impact on conservation of the resource. They are telling us that they are prevented from publishing their findings and are being prohibited from speaking publicly. So we're here today to speak on their behalf, because, quite frankly, they do not want to be identified.

We represent over 1,200 research scientists, physical scientists, biologists, chemists and other professionals employed at Fisheries and Oceans right across the country. Their work includes stock assessment, habitat management, and environmental monitoring of Canada's oceans and freshwater bodies, and it is integral to the overall conservation of Canada's natural resources. Their research contributes to the economic and social well-being of the Canadian people. Government scientists provide a service that private and non-federal organizations will not—and in many cases should not—undertake.

I'd like to offer you our view on government research programs. It is the institute's view that these programs were established to accomplish specific work that requires the neutral approach of government. The requirement for long-term studies, the regulatory nature of many scientific undertakings, and the need for unbiased analyses that protect the interests of all Canadians combine to form the foundation for the mandates of federal science departments. When expert and informed advice is diluted or ignored in favour of immediate economic or social concerns, natural resources and thus the long-term well-being of Canadians are jeopardized.

• 1015

The institute is pleased that this committee is giving serious attention to the allegations that scientific advice about the size and strength of Atlantic and Pacific fish stocks was disregarded for political gain. According to our members, this type of bureaucratic manipulation is not restricted to Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The credibility of the whole public service depends on its employees being empowered to provide the best advice to decision-makers and to speak out publicly when this advice is subverted.

Since the investigation began in November 1997 you've heard from several researchers, including some retired institute members—I expect Sandy was an institute member at some point—and they have talked about the suppression of data and the muzzling of scientists advising on Atlantic northern cod stocks and the rate of water flows required to protect the salmon population on the Nechako River of British Columbia.

The Professional Institute has been in discussion with members who are still employed in the department in these and other centres and who concur with the information you have received. What you have been hearing are not just the opinions of disgruntled former Fisheries and Oceans Canada employees. Some scientists have indicated that political and socio-economic influences have impacted on decisions that should have been based primarily on scientific considerations.

I'll pose several questions. What reasons really motivated the abandonment of scientific research lines on acid rain in the experimental lakes area; on arctic research at the Ste. Anne Biological Station; on freshwater habitat research at the West Vancouver laboratory? Why was the Institut Maurice Lamontagne parasitology unit in Mont Jolie, Quebec, totally dismantled when it was doing important research on parasites infesting cod in the Gulf of St. Lawrence? How much weight was actually given to environmental advice on such major industrial developments as the Oldman River dam construction in Alberta or the James Bay project in Quebec?

The institute is speaking on behalf of scientists who are unwilling to speak publicly, fearing repercussions from their employer. You, Mr. Chairman, offered guarantees of protection for people who came forward, similar to those guarantees available for the House of Commons. Our members are fearful that even with that guarantee there would be repercussions. They have expressed their concerns. They have asked that their concerns be quoted throughout our brief, but in deference to their real fear about retribution, we have not put their names in the brief.

The threat of job loss or fear of a lawsuit is a major constraint on public disclosure, and there are more invidious methods of inhibiting dissent. Career advancement may be severely circumscribed for individual scientists who disagree publicly or who challenge policy decisions internally. Even retired scientists such as Ransom Myers are not immune from this; I believe he is currently facing a lawsuit against him.

Opportunities for protection, assignment to special projects, international conference attendance, or participation on international joint committees may be seriously jeopardized for those who speak out. Our members fear this and they have seen it happen to themselves and their colleagues. We have evidence of this being reinforced recently in the Pacific region. I quote from an e-mail that went from departmental management, requesting of employees “Please inform this office if you are asked to appear”—asked to appear before this committee.

• 1020

Management says that they were just trying to coordinate the effort of their employees who might be appearing before this committee, but the perception of the scientists and the other members we have who received this is that it goes well beyond trying to coordinate their appearances. They want to know who's coming to the committee and who's saying what and—I'll put the question—for what reason.

So there are a number of instances that we go through in our brief. I'm not going to go into the details on all of them, but I will list several where we make comments: the northern codfish stocks in Atlantic Canada, Pacific salmon production in British Columbia and the Alcan deals. We've provided the committee with a videotape from W-5 on that particular one.

We talk about the freshwater institute in Winnipeg and the experimental lakes area, which I mentioned already.

We have concerns about why research is being discontinued. As you've heard already, the impacts on the long term are starting to become public knowledge, or at least there is more public discussion, which we're pleased to see.

We have comments about the Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences in Burlington, the habitat and enhancement branch in Vancouver and the Bedford Institute of Oceanography in Nova Scotia.

We talk about policy and how they manage policy at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. We have some comments in there and, again, a number of quotes from our members, who do not want to be identified for fear of repercussions.

What it comes down to is that the scientists have reached the conclusion that the department has failed in its guardianship of Canada's marine and freshwater resources. Laboratories have been shut down and programs cancelled without regard to scientific evidence on the negative impact of these actions. Scientists are pressured to alter publications and are denied the opportunity to present papers.

Canada's international image is diminished when projects with other countries are terminated and invitations to share research findings at international conferences are refused.

There is a prevailing climate of intimidation and mistrust within the department. Scientists are not included in the decision-making process, and many are convinced that scientific input is distorted, if not completely disregarded.

Resources are limited, and work in programs that have not been cut is hampered by downsizing and lack of funding.

Among those scientists who remain with the public service morale is dangerously low. Low morale is an insidious condition that erodes the spirit and motivation of a workforce. It undermines efficiency and productivity, which are the hallmarks in organizations where there is a high level of achievement and job satisfaction.

One of the consequences of low morale is the brain drain that I'm sure a number of you have heard about, the brain drain being experienced as talented professionals depart from the public service.

Increasingly, potential young recruits shun careers in the public service. Other consequences are the alienation of scientists from program objectives and an attitude of entrenchment.

Of equal concern is that there is a tendency to survive in this negative environment by planning for the personal circumstances that would allow one to exit from the workplace.

One retired scientist has sadly concluded that he had wasted years of his life working for Fisheries and Oceans Canada and that he could never encourage young people to work for the department.

So this opportunity to speak to the committee comes with essentially three recommendations that flow from what we have outlined in our brief.

The first recommendation is to remove restrictions and end interference into the development of knowledge by enabling scientists to publish papers about their research and to present them at conferences. Peer review is an essential element of the scientific process because it fosters debate and expert scrutiny of individual conclusions.

The decision-making process needs to be transparent. When final policy does not reflect their input, scientists can only conclude that findings have been altered or ignored. Differences of opinion or interpretation of scientific data should be widely reported. Senior policy-makers at Fisheries and Oceans Canada should be honest about decisions made for socio-economic reasons, and should allow public dissent on the part of its scientists.

• 1025

The final conclusion—and we have said this before in other forums, certainly—is for the enactment of whistle-blowing legislation. Federal public service employees have no legislative protection if they publicly report illegal or unethical behaviour. Scientists who have evidence that their employer is misusing scientific data for political purposes are threatened with dismissal if they speak out. Those who believe duty to the public overrides the general duty of confidentiality, good faith, and loyalty to the employer should be protected if they report serious misconduct.

The legislation could provide for an office of the ombudsman, which could receive and assess complaints and provide a confidential forum. This would allow employees to discuss their concerns without fear of penalty, and would also protect the employer from any harm or disruption as a result of unfounded allegations.

For any of the members of the committee who want more on that, we do have a brief that was prepared. You just have to contact the institute and let us know, and we'll ensure that you get a copy.

In a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, that is the essence of why we are before the committee. I look forward to engaging in some discussion on our concerns.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hindle.

I must say that the three witnesses today—and I'm sure committee members will agree—have given some remarkable testimony. We'll go first to the official opposition, and the spokesperson for the Reform Party of Canada, Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Baker. You've summed it up quite well.

The three of you today have summarized the can of worms very well for us. I think it's worth putting on the record here that we, as a committee, feel strongly that the scientists are doing their jobs. They're the victims, not the architects of this circumstance, and I just wanted to make that clear.

Mr. Sandeman, in your presentation you talked about the things Canada suffers from in terms of some of the fundamental building blocks of scientific knowledge in order to manage the fishery and the enforcement needs. I think it's obvious to those of us on the committee that the current observer program that we have for foreign fishing within or even outside the 200-mile limit is completely contradictory to anything we might try to achieve. In other words, we cannot manage our own fishery given that we have that kind of observer program. I think you would probably agree with that. Am I correct?

Mr. Edward Sandeman: Mr. Chairman, I think the observer program goes a long way to helping out in many instances, but unfortunately it's not the be-all and end-all. The problems with the international fleets are really very much wider than what I was referring to. I was thinking about the internal Canadian system.

I think there are clauses in our international agreements and our NAFO set-up that really are, from a Canadian viewpoint, absolutely crazy. It is impossible to achieve any real quota under the set-up that they have—and I'm sure Gus will expand on that.

The Chairman: Before you go ahead, Mr. Etchegary, for the benefit of the committee, since you probably know a great deal about the observer program—actually, I don't know if you do or not—as it relates to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and the Flemish Cap, could you continue on to address the question?

Mr. Gus Etchegary: Under the present circumstances, for the monitors on those vessels that are let's say outside 200 miles, if there's an infraction that takes place—and there are—quite frankly, I don't think the extent is really known.

• 1030

I'm not very happy. I try, as much as possible, to get copies of the surveillance reports. I'll be absolutely honest with you: I have a great deal of difficulty in believing some of the information.

One of the things that strikes me about the observer program is the fact that if, for example, an infraction takes place on board a ship outside 200 miles, the captain of the ship has the option of coming to St. Pierre and having the infraction overviewed by someone in St. Pierre on behalf of NAFO or going to Halifax or going to St. John's or going home. Well now, isn't that just jim-dandy? Where is he going? He's not coming to St. Pierre or Halifax; he's going home.

There have been infractions, and a number of them. I don't know how many, but there have been numbers of them that have gone into that wasteland somewhere in Madrid or Lisbon or Brussels and we've never seen the end of it.

Let's look at one classic example, the Estai. It was the subject of coverage in all media from coast to coast, and all over the world for that matter. Here we were with the Estai having been brought into St. John's. A secret compartment was found containing undersized fish, fish that shouldn't have been there, that were not under a quota. They were found. The evidence was there. The mesh was measured and found to be undersized. It was blatant infringement of the regulations. Where is it today? Fishing.

We have another vessel, the Kristina Logos, which was a Canadian vessel leased to someone somewhere else in the world, Namibia I think, or something like that. She comes back to the Grand Banks, fishes, breaks the regulations, is brought into St. John's, sits for almost two years at the wharf in St. John's, and has somehow gone into...someplace—into oblivion.

These are the things you see. So from my point of view, after 40 years of involvement in fishing, from harvesting to marketing, quite frankly—and very much involved in the operation of harvesting—I've never had a great deal of confidence in the monitoring system.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you very much for that.

You described very well the circumstances in 1971 and how the system really wasn't working. Now we've heard evidence about how it's not working in 1998. The three recommendations that you made are not major restructuring in any way, shape or form. They're essentially fairly minor recommendations. We've heard talk about a science czar, we've heard talk about an independent science organization. Is that not the way to go? Don't we need some basic restructuring here?

Mr. Steve Hindle: We're not sure that the single science person is the answer. We think it is important to understand that science is a very vast field and it requires an awful lot of knowledge in order to be able to balance the different aspects of it.

We are not advocating science outside of government as the answer. We think that it's important. If you have science outside of government, then the problems are with them being outside of government, and if you're inside government, the problems are inside government. I think it's better inside government so that it is doing what government asks it to do on behalf of Canadians.

What we are advocating is not major restructuring. You're correct. What we are advocating is a more open process where dissent on issues can be discussed, where people are allowed to present their ideas in a much more public forum so that the people who are interested in whatever fishery or in whatever respect of the research can have an opportunity to discuss it.

• 1035

The institute will say that there are times when socio-economic factors outweigh the scientific data, and it is appropriate at times for the people who have to make the decision to make the decision with greater weight on one aspect of the problem. That is their responsibility. We do not wish to take that responsibility away from them, and we are not really saying that the scientists should be the ones to make the decision.

What we are saying is that we want assurances for our members, and our members want assurances, that the information and the scientific data they provide and the research they do is given an appropriate weight, that there is public acknowledgement of the scientific research, that it's not just “well, yes, the scientist said something but we don't care, and we're going to do this”. We want to have it open to the public. We think it needs to be shared with people.

The Chairman: We'll now go to the remaining question from the Reform Party, to one lawyer, and then we'll go to another lawyer, one on the Liberal side, after Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My questions are going to get to the legal side of this in a minute.

I want to thank the three of you for your submissions. They are incredibly enlightening.

Mr. Hindle, I'm going to direct my questions to you. I'm going to quote you, and I wish you would correct me if I'm wrong, because it might be my note-taking. I don't mean any disrespect if I'm wrong.

This is probably the most powerful testimony that I've heard before this committee. Some of your comments left me in a state of shock. You've used these words: “bureaucratic manipulation”, “advice is subverted”, “muzzling of scientists”—and it gets worse—“fear of a lawsuit”. And you tell us this is not just a few disgruntled scientists as your colleague beside you.... I have the highest respect for the scientific community, but it sounds like this is rampant throughout the institution.

You've made the comment that socio-economic decisions are going to sometimes outweigh the fisheries, and I agree with you completely, but there has to be transparency. And even in your written recommendations you say that “scientists who have evidence that their employer is misusing scientific data for political purposes are threatened with dismissal...”. The testimony that I've heard today from you...I don't see how.... You say that we don't need an entire restructuring. Maybe you're right, but what you've told us today absolutely cannot go unchallenged or unnoticed. And I'm sure my colleagues.... If these allegations are true, it's going beyond the realm of just not listening and making decisions on your own. We're now bordering on the criminal side.

If people are being threatened in the workplace, we've reached another level. I've listened to every word of your testimony, and as a lawyer, I'm saying.... I know my colleague at the end of the table, Mr. Stoffer, has been calling for a judicial inquiry. I keep saying to Mr. Stoffer, “Yes, Peter, it would be nice to have an inquiry, but it's going to take forever. It's going to go on for years. It will take a long time, spend a lot of money, and what are we going to get from it?”

I don't know if that's still the way to go, but the seriousness of these types of allegations is beyond the realms that I can even describe.

So I'm going to ask you this. If these things are happening in the workplace—and that's what you're telling us your members are hearing—I suggest to you that they cannot go unchallenged and I suggest to you that somebody has to be held accountable if these are in fact true, because we can't carry on with an organization or a department like this, with this type of corruption to this extreme. I've never heard a testimony like this. I would like your comments.

Mr. Steve Hindle: They are indeed serious allegations. I'm glad you noted that. The fear is real. The intimidation is real. We have seen it happen in the public service in the past. The example we most often cite is what happened to Dr. Pierre Blais at Health Canada when he went public on the implications of and his concerns about the Meme breast implant. The department's response to that—it was Health Canada—was not to investigate whether or not he had valid concerns or whether or not they had done proper testing of the Meme breast implant. Their reaction was to fire him. We managed to get his job back, but that shouldn't be the process people have to go through.

• 1040

We are saying, quite frankly, that intimidation exists today in Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

I'll point you to page 7 of our brief, where we outline that in September 1997 there was a meeting with the director of science in the Pacific region of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. It took place at 1 p.m. on September 30 at the Pacific Biological Station. Fifteen employees attended. They were very candid in expressing their concerns. The director was there as an observer, not as a participant. We've been told he wrote down everything that was said and he agreed that information, the notes, would be distributed. Well, it's February 1998. Those notes have still not been distributed to the participants. They have not encouraged any additional discussion as a result of that.

I think it may be worth while for this committee, if it sees fit, to find those notes; to find out what those 15 people were saying. Perhaps that will lend some credence to what we're saying.

Now, you ask what you would get from a judicial inquiry. If nothing else, I would hope you would get a little closer to the truth.

Mr. Gary Lunn: With any inquiry—and I've seen so many—my concern has always been that sometimes people argue, quite rightly, they are a colossal waste of time because of the expense and the time stretching into days....

The Chairman: Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): First I have a preliminary comment, Mr. Chairman, to the presenters.

I'm not sitting at the table here as a lawyer. I happen to live in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, which is right at the top of three of the largest freshwater lakes in the entire world. I have a question that is essentially the same for the three of you, but slightly different for Mr. Hindle.

You can appreciate we haven't had much opportunity to study the brief you've made, but Mr. Hindle, the allegations you make are very damning to the department. Somehow this committee has to get around those problems.

But about your recommendations, Mr. Hindle, I didn't see anything in there that addressed the concerns you raise about the Great Lakes. In your case, my question to you would be about the concerns you've raised, virtually all of them, and then specifically about the Great Lakes. What would be your advice to the committee for the immediate next steps the committee should recommend the government should take to address those concerns?

Then to Mr. Etchegary and Mr. Sandeman, the same question. I didn't get a chance, because I don't have a copy of your brief, to study your recommendations, but will you tell the committee in the clearest terms you can describe what your advice to this committee would be, your recommendations for the immediate next steps that should be taken by the government to address the concerns you have raised?

Mr. Steve Hindle: You are quite right that we have made no specific recommendations on the Great Lakes. Our main focus with the brief is the overall management of science within the department rather than specific programs. We wanted to try to remain focused on the management issue.

About immediate next steps for the committee, I would respectfully submit that one of the things you may wish to do is to ask the department to identify those areas where they were doing research specific to the Great Lakes or the salmon fishery in 1994 versus where they are doing research now. Identify the people or the resources they have allocated to that research in terms of the amount of money, the laboratory space, and the people who are working—scientists, technologists, people who go out to gather the data—and ask them why it has changed, why they are not doing the research any more. Ask them what the implications to the country are for not having the research available.

• 1045

One of the things we have maintained throughout the period of program review and the government's downsizing is that it was short-term pain for long-term pain. This is characterized by the fact that the people who are leaving now are being hurt and the research is being hurt now, but the implications of not having or doing the research, of not having the capacity in the federal government to do research, are long-term in nature. They will not be known for five or ten years after the research has stopped. It will be very difficult for this country to re-establish its capacity to do research on short notice if it has dismantled the infrastructure and if it has, quite frankly, forced the researchers, the people working in research, to go elsewhere. Unfortunately, when researchers leave the federal government in this country, their best avenue is to leave the country in order to be able to continue research in their field.

The Chairman: Mr. Sandeman.

Mr. Edward Sandeman: I don't think I can add too much to that. I think you have stated it very nicely.

The first stage, of course, must be some sort of solid review and understanding of why the cuts were made in those particular areas, why the areas of research, such as the freshwater research—you mentioned Burlington—were cut, and why the cuts that were made were made in that way. What is going to be the economic effect of it on the current programs and, more importantly, future programs? That's the key thing.

The Chairman: Mr. Etchegary, do you want to add anything to that?

Mr. Gus Etchegary: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. For some time, as a matter of fact—and I'm speaking about the east coast groundfisheries—I have seen the need for far greater transparency in the whole process. I see it best achieved by using the model of the old Fisheries Research Board. That model would bring representation from every sector of Canadian society—the public, the universities, fishermen, fishermen's organizations, the provincial governments, the federal government obviously, the whole gamut. That representation would come to a board that would be operating and would be replaced over a period of time—the individuals—in order to provide the necessary continuity.

I'm speaking specifically again. I see that kind of model, with the scientists reporting to that body, carrying out its research surveys, and coming up with their scientific recommendations to that body. In turn, that body would make its recommendations to the minister with respect to the establishment of total allowable catches, possible allocation, etc.

Now, the minister has to be the final arbiter, without any doubt. But the present system, Mr. Chairman, is leaving the minister in a very difficult position, in my view. He is the final arbiter of information that's coming.

The FRCC is an example. I see the FRCC as a good organization, but it's very narrow and it's reporting to the minister. That means it's going through the bureaucracy in Ottawa. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but that's where the problem is, and that has to stop. You have to have transparency right through the system.

Now, Sandy and I may have minor differences about this, because I think he sees the department—and I'm not speaking for him, because he can well speak for himself, as you have heard—as not being excluded from the process. Well, I don't see the necessity of excluding the department from the process. The important thing is to have that buffer between the scientific council and the minister so that when recommendations come forward as to the sustainable management of the resource, they're coming from a broad group of people.

• 1050

The Chairman: Similar to the Fisheries Council of Canada. That's what you're....

I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Sandeman.

Mr. Edward Sandeman: I think what Gus is really referring to is something like the old FRB pattern, the Fisheries Research Board of Canada.

The Chairman: That's what I said, Mr. Sandeman.

Mr. Edward Sandeman: I thought you said the Fisheries Council.

A voice: Yes, you did.

The Chairman: Did I? I'm sorry.

Mr. Edward Sandeman: Pardon me. We're on the same wavelength.

I would like to add something, if I may. It's off the subject of the Great Lakes, I'm afraid, and I'm really following up on what Gus has said.

One of the problems with the FRCC side is that the FRCC is, as Gus said, very narrow in its approach. One of the problems with the old Fisheries Research Board approach was it was very broad in its approach. It involved all the things that are done under the Fisheries Act in actual fact, much of which was to do with habitat and protection of habitat as well as fisheries. That meant that the people who made up the research board were very often very much oriented to things that had nothing to do with fisheries. I think some poor decisions were made partly because of that—in the same way that I think if the FRCC was asked to rule or to recommend on things to do with habitat, there would be similar problems.

The strength of the current system as opposed to the FRB system is the contact that is established between the researchers and the people who are designing the other parts of the total management system.

Under FRB we were merely asked as scientists to provide advice, and our advice disappeared into a mole and we never heard of it again. There is a feeling certainly among scientists that you should be involved to some degree, not in the decision-making as much, but knowing what happened to that research and seeing the feedback coming back from it so that you can know and feel what others think. That was a lack under the Fisheries Research Board.

Mr. Gus Etchegary: That can be adjusted for.

Mr. Edward Sandeman: Oh, it can. There's no doubt about it.

The Chairman: I'll go now to the Bloc Québécois and Mr. Canuel.

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): I have the highest regard for scientists. I admire you and think of you as assets. To cut your funding is a serious matter in itself. However, to silence you is a tragedy. I'm from Quebec and earlier, I heard that your situation was even worse than what we experienced during the ice storm. It borders on disastrous. I have to tell you that quite frankly, I'm flabbergasted.

We give you the dollars of Canadian taxpayers to go out and do the best possible research you can and at some point, you're told that you cannot publish your findings. This is a scandalous situation that I will never cease to speak out against.

You've also said that scientific knowledge shouldn't always be taken as gospel truth. I realize that people can come to somewhat different conclusions when certain events occur. However, that is how it must be.

I for one find this situation serious and even distressing. I'm not a regular member of this committee, but rather an associate member. Nevertheless, I'm very pleased to be here this morning. I will have a question for you when I finish commenting, because in my view, Canada must focus on research. It is the critical element.

Before redistribution, my riding was home to the Maurice-Lamontagne Institute in Mont-Joli. Some researchers told me more or less the same thing as the witness who is speaking on behalf of 1,200 scientists. They told me this: "We are doing some research, but we can't talk about it very much." "Why is that?", I asked them. I was outraged. Perhaps hearing this from two or three researchers didn't give me cause enough for concern. However, listening to you speak personally and of behalf of all those whom you represent, I have to admit that the situation is serious. I cannot let the matter rest. You have my word that I will do everything in my power as a parliamentarian to see that those who do research can publish that their findings without facing the threat of legal action.

• 1055

If I understood correctly, researchers can be denied a promotion if they act in a certain way. This verges on totalitarianism. I'm not saying that we live in a totalitarian state, but judging from what's going on, it's almost true.

I have a very practical question. Everyone knows that stocks are declining. I know that Gaspé fishers are very concerned. They wonder what's going to happen this spring. They worry about how their families are going to manage five or ten years down the road. What are we going to tell them in the spring? Of course, you're not the one who makes the decisions, but what hope do these small inshore fishers have for the next five years? Must we tell them that there is no future for them? Must we tell them to sell their boats and cease all fishing activities? Should we tell them to go on welfare? What should I say to them?

Since you are the experts, I would like you to tell me exactly what is going to happen now or within the next five years, disregarding climate change for the moment. The witness has admitted that some forecasts may be a little off. In any event, I trust you implicitly and would appreciate an answer to my question.

[English]

The Chairman: It's a very important question, Mr. Sandeman, that's been asked you right now by this member, which many members wonder about. We hear a lot of people saying that the fishery could be open this year or next year, so we'd like to hear your comment. You know the facts. Tell us what you think concerning the cod, not only in the Gaspésie region but also around the îles de la Madeleine and all around, because you know what the evidence is. So can you inform this committee now of what the evidence is and what your opinion on that evidence is as far as the fishing is concerned this year and next year?

Mr. Edward Sandeman: Mr. Chairman, you've asked me a very direct and obviously very relevant question, and one I find great difficulty in answering.

One of the things that brought our group together was concern that no one was telling the fishermen the facts. No one was getting the fishermen to think about a future that might be evolved without fish. All the time the fishers “concerned” were going about their business of non-fishing hoping that at some time in the future there would be real hope. I'm sure that at some time in the future there will be real hope, but I certainly am concerned that the Government of Newfoundland, and in many ways the same in the Government of Quebec and the Government of Nova Scotia, in a way are not facing the fact that the picture is very gloomy right now. One doesn't see any future for northern cod.

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel: Just what are the facts?

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Canuel is asking what the reality is.

Let's take the zone where these fishermen fish. In 2J or 3L, what is the reality? People are saying “There's fish in the ocean. When can we fish it?” Can you inform this committee, in your scientific opinion, whether that fishery should be opened or not? Yes or no.

Mr. Edward Sandeman: I can give you a scientific opinion, but I must qualify it by the fact that for ten years I have been out of active research in that field. I do attend the meetings.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Edward Sandeman: My opinion is that there will not be a sustainable fishery if we start fishing the 2J, 3KL area earlier than at least four or five years.

The Chairman: Why?

Mr. Edward Sandeman: Because there is no sign of fish in the large offshore area and very little sign of successful year-classes.

The Chairman: Could you explain that to the committee?

• 1100

Mr. Edward Sandeman: The successful year-classes.... In order to have a sustainable fishery, as I said, one of the things we have to know is the numbers of young fish that are going to come into that fishery. In the case of northern cod, which we are talking about, it is probably at least five or six years before they can be caught reasonably, or before their size is reasonable for that, and seven or eight years before they become mature. I'm pulling numbers out of the hat, because I'm not fully familiar with the details. If we have to wait until we get a new year-class....

There are signs of year-classes now, but not big signs of big year-classes, and these have to grow. Now they have come in. They are young. They are going to grow up. In five or six years there may be enough to have a reasonable fishery.

That's a viewpoint I'm putting forward, and I have to say I am not au fait with the actual position. You've asked me, put me on the spot, and I give you an opinion; and it's only an opinion.

The Chairman: But the fishermen say the fish are large enough. We took evidence on the coast of Quebec, we took evidence in Newfoundland, that there are large fish on the inshore. What is your opinion of that observation?

Mr. Edward Sandeman: My opinion of that observation is that there must be some large fish, and we found them in the Sentinel fisheries. We've found that.

The Chairman: How old?

Mr. Edward Sandeman: They are in the 1989 year-class, most of them. I don't know about the 4T area, but in the other areas the—

The Chairman: 2J?

Mr. Edward Sandeman: 2J is the 1989 year-class.

The Chairman: 3K?

Mr. Edward Sandeman: But these are old now, and it's about the young coming up that it's not all that clear.

The last thing we should do is polish off the last bit of our remaining spawning stock. If we do there will be nothing. The sensible thing is clearly to avoid opening that fishery until these larger fish have an opportunity to add new young to the population.

Mr. Gus Etchegary: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add to that. You cannot begin a commercial fishery and sustain that commercial fishery unless you have at least three or four or five healthy year-classes. If you don't have that and you're only fishing on a single one, or one and a half, or a weak and a strong year-class, it's only a matter of short time and you're back to square one.

Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that I can go back to Newfoundland tomorrow and if I could find a veteran skipper and put him on a vessel and send him out I guarantee you he will come back with a load of fish. It's easy as falling off a log. But if he goes back ten times he won't be coming back with any load of fish.

The Chairman: Mr. Canuel.

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel: Some countries, Portugal in particular, have not complied with the 200-mile zone. Eventually, we learned of this. This is certainly one reason why stocks have declined. Is it a major one?

Another issue that I would like to revisit is the seal hunt in the Magdalen Islands. Could the ban on sealing be the reason for the disappearance of cod stocks?

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Sandeman, would you like to tackle that?

Mr. Edward Sandeman: I have just spent some time during the last week or two listening to the scientists' arguments about this particular problem. It's a very difficult problem, because it's basically very difficult to get the data about the seals, what the seals are eating. We can get data from certain places in the inshore, and these are the data being used. But the seals eat inshore and offshore, and to be able to extrapolate the data currently available there and really apply them so they apply across all the stocks is a matter of an awful lot of interpretation. Much of what we saw at this meeting was arguments between the two viewpoints, that the seals were important—

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel: That's your personal opinion. That's not what I'm interested in. I want to know the position of the scientific community. I'm asking you the question as a scientist. I don't want you to answer the way some politicians do.

• 1105

[English]

Mr. Edward Sandeman: My personal interpretation of this, I'm afraid to say, is that I can't answer that question. That's it. I can give you an opinion of what I heard, and the opinion I got was that there was a very strong debate between the two sides, people who thought one way or the other. It's not that they faulted. They looked at the data and, having looked at the data, they came up with a certain point of view. The other side looked at the same data and came up with a different point of view. It's interpretation.

This is one of the problems we face all the time. It's not an adversarial approach. Somehow we have to reason it through to the truth. It's not the one who speaks best; it's trying to get the truth. That is very difficult. When we can't get at the truth, I think we must say we can't get at the truth. That's what I'm trying to do. I don't think that knowledge is there right now.

I will say this. It's very high on the agenda of the work that is being done. I think there is going to be a large amount of money put aside so that we can do another good seal survey with this as one of the major outcomes of it. Seal surveys are extremely expensive. They require helicopters, airplanes, all the rest of it. We can't do it every year, but I do understand that this is coming up very soon.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Canuel.

[English]

We'd like to go now to four other questioners. We'd like to ask the questioners if they could keep their time period around seven or eight minutes so we can get everybody in. We'll ask Mr. Etchegary to give a practical—you'll notice I said “practical”—and experienced answer to the question of seals in a moment.

Let's go now to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Thank you. I have a couple of questions, Mr. Chair.

I want to come back to the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, but on the science I don't think there's any question of the extreme importance of research in fisheries. I come out of agriculture and we're hearing the same argument there in the sense that we're injuring ourselves for 20 years down the road in terms of the cutback on researchers. I guess decisions had to be made, and they were in fact made. How do we grapple with those decisions that were made now that we're supposedly going to have a surplus and get back on a solid foundation and move ahead? I think that's the key question.

I guess it was Sandy's point, and I think it's a very valid one. He talked about the complicated mix of individuals you have in building a lab, and I think that's increasingly so today. When you hire them, you put together that mix. When they're offered early retirement packages and incentives to leave and you lose some of the important links in your chain, you really could have problems. How do you see us dealing with that question from where we are?

There is another point I want to tie into that—somebody later, if they can. I'm concerned, in the hearings we've had, where people have said, well, the cod stocks are there, and somebody else saying, well, look, the capelin is out there, let's start fishing that stock—or sea urchin or whatever.

Somebody made the point earlier that we had to manage the ecosystem, and I think that's true. What are we doing, in terms of some of these narrow focuses, that is in fact going to kill the food chain that the cod and some of the species are in fact depending on?

I do have a question I have to ask the Professional Institute of the Public Service.

Mr. Edward Sandeman: How do we deal with this problem of replacing the key disciplines in labs? I think the actual, immediate approach to that is relatively simple. Currently there is a very firm ban that one cannot hire anyone else, and when you do lose key people you can't replace them. I think if there were some selective mechanism whereby it was looked at and a few key people were able to be replaced, were allowed to be replaced, we could certainly go ahead and replace them. I think that has to be done. It must be done.

• 1110

The Chairman: Mr. Easter.

Mr. Wayne Easter: We need to get you people before the finance committee or Treasury Board or somewhere; in all seriousness, that's where this has to be said. In terms of talking to people within the system, you used to be able to walk down the hall to talk to a fellow colleague who fifteen years ago had experienced this same thing. Just like that, you had the information. Now, within several departments, that history is gone, and that's going to be a problem.

Mr. Edward Sandeman: Corporate history is very important.

Mr. Wayne Easter: It's very important, yes.

My question is to the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada about the statement in here on page 4, and basically the allegation made by the e-mail, “Please inform this office if you are asked to appear”. I do not see that as a threat. I would expect that as president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, if you have a president of a local in Vancouver making a presentation today, you would know about it through your regular communications channels.

I was president of a national organization for eleven years, and I'll tell you that there would be hell to pay if I, as president, wasn't informed that one of my local presidents or directors somewhere was making a presentation to a government or a body. That didn't mean I tried to influence their presentation. I just wanted to know, because as president of the organization I was also going to have to answer for it. And I think senior managers have to be in a position to answer for something like that as well.

I will agree that there are certainly some problems in terms of transparency within the science system, but I think Sandy previously said it as well. He said that in his experience he knows of no scientists who have changed their figures to suit the situation, that it's like a bell curve. There are always other agendas that people are pushing. If you are in the public service as a scientist and are fearful of losing your job, whether it is real or perceived, you are going to feel that pressure.

I'm saying that in terms of some of these things that are happening now, and in terms of those kinds of statements, I think they're much ado about nothing. But I will agree that we do have to find a way of having scientists feel they can trust their managers and that their managers are going to back them up when they dissent. Dissent is important. It is important to the debate in order to finally come to a conclusion.

I just make those points because I know some of the people opposite are trying to use these arguments to move us towards a judicial inquiry, which is not what we need at this time. I think we have to find transparency, establish some trust in the system, and get back to good science, as you people are demanding.

The Chairman: Mr. Hindle.

Mr. Steve Hindle: Thank you, Mr. Chairman

I think you actually answered your own question by the time you got through your comments, Mr. Easter. You're right, you would not feel that as an intimidating question because you are outside Fisheries and Oceans Canada. You are not in the department. You are not within or subject to the culture that currently exists within Fisheries and Oceans. I think it is important that we move to a culture, an environment, an atmosphere in which people will feel that such a question is not intimidating.

Your earlier point was about whether or not it is a requirement that people in my organization tell me when they make presentations. I appreciate the understanding that you have for national organizations, but it is not really a requirement within my organization. On those occasions when I do ask people to make sure to tell somebody in the office—whether it is the manager of the regional operation or one of the political people who is involved with it or me—it goes with the understanding that this may come up in another area and that I'd appreciate knowing what's going on and what is being said just so that I can back those people up and can assure them they have the support they need.

• lll5

I like to think that in our organization there's a culture where people understand it's in order to support the activities right across the organization. Unfortunately, that is not the feeling within Fisheries and Oceans.

The Chairman: Fine. Thank you, Mr. Hindle.

We're now going to go to the Progressive Conservative Party. Or should I go to the New Democratic Party first? I guess it will be the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, as they have greater numbers of people in the House.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): No, they don't; we do. One more.

The Chairman: Oh yes. That's right.

Why am I going to the Progressive Conservative Party?

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Because he's from Newfoundland.

The Chairman: Okay, we're going to go to Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): I don't want to occupy too much time of the committee, because I've had an opportunity to be with Mr. Etchegary and Mr. Sandeman on a couple of occasions before and of course I have access to them at any time. I just want to thank them for their presentations. I thought they did a very thorough job and it was very educational for us all. I thank the institute as well.

I guess it's not a question; it's probably by way of a statement. What we have here is a big lack of trust, and that has to be dealt with in some way. It's too bad that all the scientific community gets lumped in with the problem. When you say science and scientists, everyone is included. There is a lack of trust by the fishing community and by the general public that has to be dealt with.

I was interested to hear the observations and comments about where science should be. I'd like to refer members to page 13 of the report. Mr. Easter didn't think the memo about scientists appearing meant much out west, but when you read from page 13:

If the department tries to fuse scientific research and management, it's attempting to amalgamate two completely different worlds. Scientific input is subsumed by bureaucratic expediencies.

That's from a retired DFO scientist.

Then it goes on:

An honourable politician will strive to better separate the roles of politics and science and let the public know whether science as represented by a group of highly respected scientists really stands.

Then, of course, on the next page we have a scientist who says it was sort of insignificant interference, but when you have so many insignificant interruptions or interferences the cumulative effect becomes larger.

When you have that many people within DFO science saying these kinds of things, to me there's an obvious and very serious problem.

I'd just like to pursue the issue, from Gus's and Sandy's point of view particularly, as to where they really.... I know Gus feels very strongly about this, and this is why I'm asking the question.

We've talked about the Fisheries Research Board, about the FRCC, about the need for transparency. Gus, I'd like you to try to expand a bit more on that.

I, like you, by the way, feel that there has to be an agency that's removed from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to which scientists provide their data and their recommendations that will thoroughly assess those and and then make a recommendation to the minister.

I'm just wondering if you can elaborate on that, because I feel that way. If we're going to put trust back into this, then there's going to have to be a change from what we have now.

I'd like to hear the witnesses' views further expanded on that.

The Chairman: Mr. Etchegary, I wonder if you could also address the other question that you wanted to address concerning—

Mr. Gus Etchegary: With respect to seals?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Gus Etchegary: Very quickly, to me there is a very serious absence of information for the scientists to determine what is the consumption of cod or the food chain and to what extent. There is a sad lack of information.

Sandy is right. It takes helicopters. There is research done inshore. It is done where it's least expensive to do it. But the presence of this huge body of seals has to be dealt with, and the information that's coming out at the present time....

Sandy is saying it properly, that he doesn't know and the scientists are really not sure. There are programs that might come in place, but it's going to require money and substantial effort to answer the question as to how many seals, how many fish and what kinds of fish seals are eating.

You've got to remember that the cod scientists and the capelin scientists cannot function unless they have more information.

• 1120

This is serious stuff we're talking about here. I hope everybody understands that we have a Department of Fisheries that is probably trying its best. I give it all the credit in the world. I've known fifteen ministers of fisheries and nine deputies in my time, and I've worked with them.

I have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I don't envy the present Minister of Fisheries. To be working with the kind of information that's coming up through the system and how it's coming.... I'm not talking about the model of the Fisheries Research Board, I'm talking about a modified model, something that's going to give transparency on one hand, and on the other hand provide that all-important buffer that is going to remove this distrust and this lack of confidence pervading the whole Department of Fisheries. If anybody thinks otherwise they're kidding themselves.

So let's understand this. I'm here for probably the last time to appear before a parliamentary committee, but I urge you, as a responsible bunch of men and women, to hear what's being said about this problem, because it is an enormous problem.

Sandy and I have just lived through eight days of listening to fifty to sixty frustrated professional men and women.

The Chairman: Scientists.

Mr. Gus Etchegary: Yes. They're trying to grapple with how much cod is there and is there a commercial fishery. You have scientists with special disciplines and their interpretation of the limited data coming from that direction, and then other specialists coming from another direction, and they're trying to pool this information and come up with an intelligent assessment. And they can't do it, because they don't have the information!

That has to be understood, Mr. Easter. They don't have the information, and there is distrust, there's a lack of confidence. There are good people leaving the system with armfuls of information that will be lost to this Department of Fisheries. It's really serious stuff.

We've seen a demise of the groundfisheries. And incidentally, I want to make one quick point. Historically, the groundfisheries represent 80% of the economic value of fisheries to Newfoundland. Our sister province of Nova Scotia is exactly the other way; in that case, 80% is from crustaceans, like lobsters, scallops, crabs, etc. What I'd like to convey to you is that the impact of the demise of the fisheries on the east coast of Newfoundland has hit Newfoundland like a thunderbolt. Other provinces have been somewhat isolated. This is important.

I know the Gaspé Peninsula very well, and I know their dependence, so I don't put them out of the ball game. But I must say to you, Mr. Chairman, that with the demise of the fishery and because, I suppose, of the relative values of the food chain—I guess that's the way of putting it, Sandy—two new species, shrimp and crab, are strengthening in the last four or five years. That's because in the food chain, because of the demise of the cod fishery, you're now having fantastic growth in these two other species. And how well are we managing those two very valuable fisheries? Poorly. Poorly is the word.

I'll give you an example about shrimp. About seven or eight years ago, there we were with one of the largest shrimp finds in the northwest Atlantic, outside 200 miles on a place called the Flemish Cap, from the Flemish Cap into the nose of the banks. There were 90 to 100 of the largest fishing vessels in the world—all foreigners—fishing that resource for about four to five years. When it was a virgin fishery, 80% of the catches of those vessels were large, prime fish for the Japanese market, and were fetching the highest prices, right?

A voice: Sure.

Mr. Gus Etchegary: The catch rates were 25 tonnes a day. The distribution of these shrimp was 80% female, which, Sandy, is all-important to the resource, because they change gender. Today that fishery is down to one and a half tonnes per day. The size has gone from 80% large down to 80% small, and the female population is about 10%. In other words, that resource has been devastated.

• 1125

This is within the NAFO regulation. This fishery is administered by NAFO. Someone may say, well, what can Canada do about it? Canada should have taken a very aggressive position within NAFO to see that that fishery, which is on our continental shelf, is managed properly. We couldn't stop them from fishing, but it should have been fished in a very orderly and sustainable fashion, not destroyed. We stood by as a nation and watched this happen, knowing it. The bureaucrats in the Department of Fisheries knew it. They knew the details, and they had some flimsy excuse, probably out of External Affairs, that stopped them from taking any kind of aggressive position in NAFO. These are facts.

We have a Minister of Fisheries in Newfoundland today. Yesterday I heard him crying out loud, saying, “I don't want any fish to leave Newfoundland unless they're processed. We want them processed in the province.” This is very laudable and wonderful, but what fish is he talking about? He's talking about shrimp. I think as an aggressive minister—and he is a good one—he should be trying that and doing his best. Everybody seems to forget that this shrimp, to be processed, has to find a market in Europe against a 20% tariff, and our principal competitors, notably Norway and Iceland, don't have to pay anything.

So here we are with a 20% tariff against us, these two main competitors who pay no tariff selling into an absolutely gorgeous market, especially with the currencies the way they are today, and here we are, helpless, with a whole bunch of people leaving Newfoundland. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, somebody—and again I bring it to this committee's attention that that 20% that has been there for the last 15 years should today have been negotiated by Canada down to about 10% or less.

The Chairman: We're going to go to another question here. Mr. Etchegary, even today you're saying that on Canada's continental shelf, 80 to 100 of the largest fishing vessels in the world are raking up shrimp, and Canada is a part of the management committee, together with NAFO—as a full-fledged member of NAFO. They are all foreign vessels today on Canada's continental shelf. Do I read you correctly? Yes or no?

Mr. Gus Etchegary: Absolutely, but more important than just a member, we're a coastal state.

The Chairman: That's right.

Mr. Gus Etchegary: A special member.

The Chairman: We own the continental shelf.

Mr. Gus Etchegary: That's right.

The Chairman: Okay.

Now we're going to go to Mr. Stoffer, Mr. Hubbard, and Mrs. Leung.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much, gentlemen, and thank you very much for your presentations.

I went to a restaurant the other day and I got very poor service, but I couldn't complain about it because there was none. I guess in DFO you can't complain about the research because there is none.

My colleague Mr. Lunn has inquired.... Yes, I have been pushing for a judicial inquiry. The Reform Party yesterday mentioned that a guy got 60 days in jail for killing a dog. I'd like to see some of these DFO managers in jail for killing the fish, the stock, the livelihood, of literally hundreds of thousands of people in this country. That's why I'm pushing for an inquiry. Unless Mr. Easter and this panel, with recommendations, come in where it can be transparent, where these people can publish.... If that can happen, I'll stop calling for it, but until that happens.... I have no confidence in the upper level management of DFO; absolutely none whatsoever.

My attacks on DFO are never aimed at the minister himself, because next year we could have another minister. It's those same bureaucrats who are there. Look what they're doing. They're hiring Mr. Murray, a retired DND person. What we need are you three gentlemen in there. We don't need someone from the military; we need someone who knows about fish.

For God's sake, I can't believe I'm talking about this.

My fear is that the same people are still there. I'm thinking, why is all this happening? What's the purpose? I'm coming to this conspiracy theory I have, that DFO has this incestuous relationship with those in the industry. We heard about that incestuous relationship with people moving from private industry into DFO and from DFO into the private industry.

• 1130

Just the other day I got a letter stating that a Mr. John Thomas, who was an ADM with the coast guard, has left the coast guard with DFO and has now moved over to Irving as the head of the shipyards in Irving in Halifax. He is now bidding on contracts that DFO is giving out, contracts that he set up in alternate service deliveries.

That's the kind of incestuous relationship I'm talking about. I can give name after name after name.

Mr. Easter asked us a month ago for documents and evidence that we have on leaked documents and information on DFO and the bureaucratic bungling. You're getting samples of it now, Mr. Easter, along with the rest of you. A lot more will be coming, until you'll be completely inundated with it.

The other day I was in the University of Ottawa. They had a policy and science debate between Dr. Art May, Dr. Chisholm, and Dr. Pauly. Dr. Art May said that if you wish to vocalize your complaints against DFO, you should quit—just get up and quit and then complain. Dr. Pauly had the completely other point of view, that if you feel as a scientist that your information is being misrepresented or omitted in any way, you should be able to speak out inside the department. That's why the whistle-blowing legislation would be very important.

You're absolutely right on page 12 about the Bedford Institute. I took just one walk in that building and it felt as if ghosts were hanging all over it. That is the most demoralized building I have ever seen in my life. I've never worked there. I had never even been there before. Now on page 12 is the fact that one of our finest institutes in the world has been reduced to shambles and sort of a facade that we're doing something for stocks. It's completely unacceptable.

There's a lot more I can say. I don't want to take up too much of the committee's time, but there is one question that a lot of university professors have been asking me to ask you specifically. In all the evidence that we've heard over the past months, would science in partnership—the department, the government and scientists in partnership with those in the universities—go a long way toward correcting some of the problems we're facing today?

Thank you.

Mr. Steve Hindle: Thank you, Mr. Stoffer. In particular, thank you for the confidence that you'd like me to manage the fish. I don't think you really want to do that. I like to eat fish and I like to know they are available, but I don't know much more about fish than that.

But I represent the people who know an awful lot about fish, and I think the suggestion of a partnership with the university is a useful one. I wouldn't say that it's going to solve the problem, but it could be one of those items that's put into place that helps to resolve the problem, to allow, on a more rigorous basis, departmental scientists to have interaction with university scientists, sharing data, sharing research, having arguments about interpretation of the results and, if not allowing the Fisheries scientists to publish and promote this publicly, allowing the universities to take the department's research and make it public, providing some protection for the public service employees at the same time.

So this is a valuable suggestion, and I think there are ways to make it work.

The Chairman: I think Mr. Sandeman would like to offer some additional, and probably contradictory, information.

Mr. Edward Sandeman: With regard to this question about working with universities, I have to point out that a lot of this has been done in the past and is in fact being done now—not quite as much now maybe as it used to be, because of financial constraints. If we are working in partnership, then we have to provide the finances for them to change their research directions and provide ship time and these sorts of things.

I remember that in the early part of the moratorium there was a five-year program on cod aimed specifically at northern cod. I think there was more university participation in that.... I'm guessing in saying this, but there was a lot. There was as much university participation in that program as there was government science. So it's quite possible. It should be encouraged, I think.

I think there are a lot of points of jealousy between university scientists and government scientists, because government scientists don't have the problems of having to teach. We can get on with the research and are paid for it and provided with the requisite resources usually, whereas university scientists aren't. They have to look for grants and have all the rest of the problems that they face.

It's a very valid point, and I think it's well worth pursuing.

The Chairman: We'll now go to New Brunswick.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: I could say more.

The Chairman: I'm surprised that he didn't mention the 100 foreign factory vessels fishing on the Canadian continental shelf, dragging away our shrimp.

Anyway, we're going to go on to Mr. Hubbard, who has had a great interest in the area of science and research from the province of New Brunswick.

• 1135

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): I have strong views about that, Mr. Chair.

We've heard some good information this morning. It's probably very perplexing information, because science is about man's curiosity, and of course within the department there is so much money to be allocated and only so much can be allocated towards science.

On the one hand we have the science that is interested in trying to study the various species and trying to promote and enhance, and on the other we have the science and technology of catching fish. That, of course, has been a major factor in what has happened in the last 25 or 30 years—the technology and the ability of those scientists to be able to locate our fish. And tied into that, of course, is the ultimate business or the old Malthus theory that our world population has been increasing greatly in the last generation, along with the demand for protein in the world, with other fisheries coming to our shores, tied in, of course, with the fact that when Newfoundland joined Confederation the limits were very small in terms of the waters that Canada controlled.

I can remember back to the sixties and seventies, when we increased our limits and tried to get control of areas that are now up to 200 miles. I'm perplexed with the whole issue, because scientists speak and politicians deal with the human side of what the fishery is about. We can be critical of one of our opponents, Mr. Crosbie, but Mr. Crosbie was dealing with the fact that the fish resource was declining, and ultimately he had to say to 40,000 people in his home province that their occupations were terminated for a period of time.

Mr. Chairman, I think we're looking at that again today. We're hearing from you that maybe it's another five years, and as politicians we have to ask ourselves how long society can promote and encourage people to stay there and wait for a resource to return.

If they had waited for the buffalo to come back in Manitoba they'd still be sitting there waiting. On the Miramichi and across New Brunswick we've seen the Atlantic salmon fishery completely closed as a commercial fishery. It was a very lucrative fishery in the sixties, fifties, and forties.

But what really perplexes me is the fact that somebody is trying to say that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is a very inefficient, mismanaged department with a very difficult climate or culture in which to work. Maybe Mr. Hindle can tell us this morning if the Department of Fisheries is worse than other departments he deals with.

Or is this a culture of the entire Canadian government that people who want to say something...? And I don't think we can have forty different policies and a hundred different papers all going in different directions. Scientists all differ. Every scientist has a different answer. You very seldom see more than two or three collude together to say what has to happen. Science is an area of curiosity and study and trying to put forward ideas.

I'm asking all of you if the Department of Fisheries is the worst department within our government. It seems to be presented that way. Is it different from other departments as the administration and the overall top management suppresses information and distorts material? In fact it's almost like the KGB in terms of what you're trying to say to us. Is this a fact, Mr. Hindle?

Mr. Steve Hindle: I wouldn't go so far as to compare it to the KGB. In terms of science in government, all the departments have problems with how they deal with science and how they deal with the scientists who produce research and results and have very strong opinions.

It is quite possible that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is the worst. It's certainly the one that takes the majority of my attention in terms of dealing with the suppression of science and the concerns of our members in the scientific areas. But each of the departments has their own culture and their own problems to deal with and they handle them differently. Some departments are naturally more secretive than others. The one I used to work in, Revenue Canada, where you don't want a lot of public talk about taxpayer records, is an example. That's understandable. Things are handled differently there, but they have their own problems to deal with.

In terms of the members we represent, Fisheries and Oceans continues to come up as a place where people are no longer happy working. So if it's not the worst, it's certainly among the worst.

• 1140

The Chairman: Mrs. Leung.

Ms. M. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): I think Charles had something else, Mr. Chairman. I'll let him finish.

The Chairman: Oh, absolutely.

Mr. Hubbard, go ahead.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I'd just like to hear from my two friends from Newfoundland on whether or not there is a possibility that these fish are going to come back. How long do you think it's going to take? Can we as a committee say it will be five years?

Mr. Edward Sandeman: No.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Is it longer than five years?

Mr. Edward Sandeman: We don't know, but I can tell you—

Mr. Charles Hubbard: You don't know.

Mr. Gus Etchegary: Everyone who has an attachment to the fishery has invested their lives, their heritage, their culture. It's why we're there and why we're going to stay there. What we're looking for is good management.

I can sit here until tomorrow and cite you example after example of incidents of poor decisions with respect to management, but that's gone. What we want is a change. For example, I'll give you just one. I was a commissioner, and a friend of mine who has now passed on was the other commissioner, the chief commissioner of that time. This was in NAFO; it was actually the transitional sessions that took place from ICNAF to NAFO—and I was giving Sandy the details of this this morning.

We went to the chairman, the then deputy minister, and told him that now that we were in transition from ICNAF to NAFO, it was the ideal time. Canada was sitting right at the top, it had the bargaining position to get rid of the dreadful thing called the objection procedure, which was a part of the constitution of ICNAF for so many years and which disadvantaged Canada seriously. Now that we were managing 200 miles and there were adjacent stocks, we wanted that objection procedure removed from NAFO. The two commissioners, myself and Mr. Hendriksen, pleaded with the government, pleaded with the people who were making the briefing notes for the meeting. We pleaded for them put it on the table, for goodness' sake, in order to get rid of it once and for all.

Just to give you a brief explanation, as in ICNAF, the objection procedure in NAFO allows these sixteen members to sit down in Halifax or some other spot and agree to the establishment of the total allowable catches and allocations on a country-by-country basis. The objection procedure gives them the opportunity to go back home for ninety days, and all they then have to do is send a fax to the secretariat in Halifax, saying that they object to the tax and allocations, and are going to establish their own unilateral quotas. It was important to us to get rid of that, so we said to the head commissioner that we were going to do this. We wanted to do it, but we didn't do it.

To make a long story short, two years from then, the West Germans, Spanish, Portuguese, and all of the nations in the European Community established their own unilateral quotas and took hundreds of thousands of tonnes of cod away from the resource, sir. If they had been left, we would have in all likelihood seen a return of the fishery in that area today.

So that's just one, and I can cite you quite a few more.

The Chairman: And that clause still exists today?

Mr. Gus Etchegary: It still exists.

The Chairman: It covers all the fishing zones right along the east coast, does it?

Mr. Gus Etchegary: That's right. It's a dreadful thing. Canada has—

The Chairman: Inside and outside the 200-mile zone?

Mr. Edward Sandeman: Not inside.

The Chairman: But the zones go inside and outside. In fact, as you will agree, Mr. Sandeman, the majority of the zones are inside—3L, 99%.

Anyway, let's go on to another questioner now. Mrs. Leung.

Ms. Sophia Leung: I want to thank you all for your fine presentation.

I'm very concerned about the freedom of and protection of the scientists. Regarding your recommendation three, you suggest an office of the ombudsman. I want to be more specific. What do you really mean? Do you think it's feasible to have independent scientific groups, or maybe a council?

Another thing is that I'd like to see more university-connected, independent research, such a thing as NRC, to which they usually give very big grants. What do you think? This is a question for the three of you. Perhaps that kind of council will be established, independent and objective enough to be able to conduct and also try to encourage the highest quality of research. This is what I want to know. Would you kindly answer that?

• 1145

The Chairman: Mr. Hindle.

Mr. Steve Hindle: On the office of an ombudsman, we would see that person as within government, although somewhat independent from any specific department. The initial take on a problem or an issue would be within government. The person would hear the issue outlined by the person making the complaint and the ombudsman would be charged with determining whether or not the information should be publicized, how Parliament should be informed about what's going on, or whether or not there was no merit at all to the allegations being made.

On the other issue of a science council, we continue to think it's important for science to be done within government. The current structure is within government departments. We are really advocating opening up a little bit more the discussion about the results of science, what they mean, and where the disagreements are, because even amongst the scientific community there will be disagreements over how to interpret results.

We have not given a lot of thought to an independent science council. We think there is a role to be played for government in managing and in some ways directing science and the resources the government has available for doing research.

The Chairman: Mr. Sandeman.

Mr. Edward Sandeman: Mr. Chairman, within myself I certainly very much support the idea of something like an ombudsman. I think many of the examples you quoted—and one I am familiar with to some extent is the Nechako one. I think that could have been resolved very simply by some sort of look by an independent body when the problem occurred. What has happened there is the problem occurred really many years ago and the disturbance that was there has been built up within the science community. It has certainly had a very poor effect on the morale of far more people than are really concerned in it.

With regard to where the work should be done, my personal viewpoint is that government has to do most of the work. Some of the reasons were given this morning. I think there is a place for partnerships, very definitely, particularly if we go more towards the ecosystem type of approach, which we're not really near doing yet. It becomes very clear that universities could play a very strong part in it, particularly on some of the disciplines that are maybe not as well represented within the government science. I think there's definitely hope for that.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Leung.

I think we've covered all of the questioners.

Mr. Duncan wishes to say something.

Mr. John Duncan: Just very quickly, we have a reference here called “The Current Crisis in World Fisheries”. I want to talk for one second about bluefin tuna. You may have some background here. This statement says:

The western Atlantic breeding population of the northern bluefin tuna, probably the world's most valuable fish on an individual basis, is reported to have fallen by 90% since 1975, from an estimated 250,000 individual fish to just over 20,000.

My question to you, Gus and Sandy, is if that is an accurate statement, and I have to assume it's pretty accurate, why are we fishing bluefin tuna? Why are we allowing other nations to fish bluefin tuna in our waters? This is not a sustainable catch, obviously.

Mr. Edward Sandeman: This is another of the questions I'm afraid I have to bow out from in some ways, because I certainly am not familiar with the current status of bluefin tuna. However, I do know there is an international group, the International Tuna Commission, that is responsible for the management of all the tuna. I think there are several groups actually, depending on where it's situated geographically.

The bluefin tuna should be controlled by that group. Again, I can't respond any further than that. Twenty thousand sounds like overfishing.

• 1150

Mr. John Duncan: For your information, this committee tried to attend the meetings and were denied the ability to attend by the minister.

The Chairman: Even as observers.

Mr. John Duncan: Could I get your comment, Mr. Etchegary?

Mr. Gus Etchegary: I'm afraid I can't add anything either, quite frankly.

Mr. John Duncan: Okay.

The Chairman: Mr. Etchegary, I wonder, though, if you might comment on the fact that Japan this year has 113 metric tonnes inside the 200-mile zone on the Virgin Rocks and on the Scotia Shelf, which is four times in excess of what Newfoundlanders can catch inside. Do you want to make a comment on that, why you think the—

Mr. Gus Etchegary: I have limited knowledge of it. I can only say that even if there is some truth in what has been written about the state of that resource, there shouldn't be any fishery certainly inside 200 miles of Newfoundland, whatever else. Neither should there be any fishery by any foreign country within the 200 miles, Mr. Chairman, in my view. It is absolutely unacceptable that there should be fishing by foreign nations.

Here again, I want to make a comment on some of the decisions of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I'm not necessarily blaming anybody, but it just seems to me that, as I said earlier, it's an unenviable position the minister is in. I wouldn't want to be there. In a way, I wouldn't want to be there.

Let me say this to you. I bought ships on behalf of my company immediately following the war, when no shipbuilding was taking place and it just was beginning to gear up. Then of course they came out like sausages. Immediately after the war, we found ourselves purchasing second-hand side trawlers in places like Holland or Norway and so on. I think we bought half a dozen. We brought them over and then of course we got into our own building programs and so on. The time came when, believe it or not, we were able to sell those vessels back to the original owners.

The point I wanted to make was this. In the bill of sale to the foreigner, we had to satisfy the Canadian government that that vessel would not fish in Canadian waters.

I was appalled this year to go down on a wharf in St. John's and look at vessels I was responsible for building fishing on the continental shelf of Canada—and bringing it to places like Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and so on. I don't know what happened to that regulation; I don't know whether it disappeared or not, but it was a regulation that was in place.

The same thing goes, Mr. Chairman, for the shrimp fishery. Here we are with these joint ventures going on between clinkers out of the old U.S.S.R.—and most of them are not fit to be sailed on—and others that are fishing in our waters. They're catching shrimp, bringing it in, putting it into a warehouse in either Argentia or Harbour Grace, and transshipping it back to the Danes to process and put into the European market.

I brought up earlier the 20%. What we should have been working at was reducing that 20% so that our processors in Newfoundland would be able to provide some work and so on. But this is going on. Of course there are people in Canada, some people in the industry, who may want to see that continue, but the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should stop it. It has no place in 1998.

The Chairman: In conclusion, Mr. Etchegary, your companies, who have no offshore fleet now at all, sold their vessels to foreign nations that are now over here fishing off the Canadian coast and getting their supplies in St. John's Harbour.

Mr. Edward Sandeman: It's his fault.

The Chairman: So you see a company vessel.... The fish plant is closed in Canada. The vessel was sold to a foreign nation. A Lithuanian crew in St. John's Harbour is going back and forth out fishing.

Mr. Gus Etchegary: That's right.

The Chairman: Okay, do we have any further...?

Mr. Gary Lunn: I would like to make one comment, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: There is another issue, and I'm sure I'll be joined by all my colleagues here—

The Chairman: I wonder, are we finished with the...? Okay, let's go to points of order, if you don't mind just staying for matters that probably do not pertain to you. Go ahead, Mr. Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: This is something that was brought to my attention yesterday, and it is deeply troubling me. As we all know—and maybe some of us are not aware of this—there is one person on our committee who is not here today, Mr. O'Brien from Labrador.

• 1155

Our committee has been working together for a very short time, for approximately six months. As you know, we travelled through eastern Canada and we all got to know each other very well and formed not only professional working relationships but very personal friendships among all our members.

I understand that Mr. O'Brien is suffering in the hospital, as we sit here, with a very serious illness. I would like to convey that he is deeply missed by all committee members. Our thoughts and our prayers go to him and his family. Would you, Mr. Chairman, personally convey that to him on behalf of the committee?

The Chairman: All members of the committee. It shall be done.

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: Another point of order. We finished our west coast tour in Campbell River when we were hosted by the Campbell River Tourism Promotion Society. It would be very appropriate for the committee, or for the chair on behalf of the committee, to write to the Campbell River Tourism Promotion Society, with a copy to the municipality, who also contributed to hosting us, expressing our great appreciation for what they did. It was a super evening and we learned a lot.

The Chairman: Unanimous agreement of the committee.

Mr. Wayne Easter: I especially appreciated that we had blue mussels.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Now, you have before you—and I might say, just hold on to it—copies of suggested revisions of our possible report on the east coast. Just to remind you, there are members of the media present in the room, and there are only the number of copies given to committee members. I would ask you to read it all—because we have our meeting on Tuesday from 8.30 a.m. until 11.30 a.m.—and go over this information, plus the evidence we heard here today. This will perhaps be the last evidence we will hear with some input on the east coast report.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chairman, this Tuesday...? I thought there was some discussion on 8.30 a.m. Is that...?

The Chairman: From 8.30 to 11.30.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Is that...?

A voice: Would you like to start at seven, Mr. Hubbard?

The Chairman: No, I think he had difficulty with meeting the 8.30 deadline.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I won't be here, but I wonder, will other members be here at that time?

The Chairman: I think Ms. Leung will be here at 9.30. Is that correct, Ms. Leung?

Ms. Sophia Leung: Yes, 8.00 to 9.30.

The Chairman: So that's okay. Just come and go. We can so arrange things while that's....

Mr. Wayne Easter: Maybe this is more to the clerk. There is some very good evidence here, and I've got reasonable notes on it, but if there is any way of getting copies of the blues of this meeting prior to that meeting on Tuesday, I would like to have them, please.

The Chairman: This meeting's blues.

Mr. Wayne Easter: Yes.

The Chairman: I think that's very important. We must have a copy of the blues of this meeting.

A voice: There is a 24-hour turnaround.

The Chairman: A 24-hour turnaround on the blues? We've got the actual presentations, but I understand what you're saying. We must have the blues. Okay, that will be done.

Is there anything else? Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: I was handed a paper. I asked a question about bluefin tuna. I want to read this, for interest:

The current catch quota for east coast bluefin, shared primarily by the U.S., Japan and Canada, stands at 2,200 tons. Concern that overfishing had depleted bluefin stocks prompted the commission...

—this is ICCAT—

...to direct its scientists to provide catch quota options that would lead to population recovery within 20 years. The most optimistic of four alternative new reassessments showed that a quota reduction to 500 tons or less is needed to rebuild the population within two decades.

Here we go again: 500 tons for a 20-year rebuilding of the stocks, and we're at 2,200.

The Chairman: Also, there is one other nation that has joined that organization, and it's Bermuda. They've been given an allocation.

That's fine. Are there any further comments?

We want to thank the witnesses who appeared before us today. This has been excellent testimony from the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada on behalf of the 1,200 scientists in DFO, and also the individual testimony from Mr. Gus Etchegary and Mr. Edward Sandeman, representing their organization in St. John's. I must say, gentlemen, this has been a very worthwhile session for us. Each committee member feels the same way.

• 1200

Mr. Hindle.

Mr. Steve Hindle: Thank you. It's not often I get applause from a Commons committee.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the other members of the committee for a very engaging morning. There were provocative questions and certainly some interesting answers.

I apologize to the committee for not introducing my colleague Sally Diehl, who's a research officer and compensation analyst with the professional institute. She was heavily involved with the preparation of the brief you received from us today. I want to thank her quite publicly for the information in there. She did a fine job. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Did you have one further thing, Mr. Etchegary?

Mr. Gus Etchegary: I'd also like to thank the committee very much for allowing us to be here. We certainly enjoyed it as well.

There's one last point I would like to put to you. We have a bit of concern about the MAI. The concern is if there just happened to be foreign investment in the fisheries of some eastern province, for example—it's a question really, because we don't know. We would ask the committee to at least look at what the possibility might be as a result of that in the weakening of Canada's administration of the 200-mile zone.

The Chairman: Mr. Etchegary, we've already discussed this. What we're going to do—on your recommendation some time ago—is have the legal experts before the committee to go over this very thing. We'll be producing an east coast report very soon and then a west coast report. We're working on the science report in which your testimony today will play some major role over a longer period of time, because we have to hear from a lot more witnesses. We want to thank you for being here today.

This meeting is adjourned.