Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses appearing before the committee.
What this committee is studying is the changing ocean conditions or other factors off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador that led to stock fluctuations in northern shrimp and other species.
I was a fisheries journalist for a lot of years. In the early 1990s when the commercial fisheries were closed off Newfoundland and Labrador, I was the fisheries reporter for the daily newspaper, The Telegram, in St. John's, Newfoundland. I remember the talk of the day. There was some scientific talk about the impact that changing oceanographic conditions had on commercial groundfish stocks. A lot of people saw that as a deflection. It was DFO's way of deflecting attention away from its mismanagement, the science that wasn't there, deflecting attention away from that toward changing ocean conditions.
A lot of people say that what led to the collapse of groundfish stocks, such as cod, such as flounder, was pure overfishing, was pure mismanagement, and was lack of science. So when I sit here today and I hear your testimony about how changing ocean conditions are having an impact on crab and shrimp, I shake my head.
We're looking at this question of the impact of changing ocean conditions or other factors. Let me ask you a question about these other factors.
Now I realize that you're biased in terms of where you come from with the department. But what role did inadequate science—if there was inadequate science—have in this? What role did poor management have in the decline of stocks such as shrimp?
I have a second part to that question. Considering DFO's success—or should I say lack of success—when it comes to anything in terms of commercial stocks off Newfoundland and Labrador, should there be, in your scientific opinion, an independent, outside analysis of DFO's science and management?
I think that's a fair question to ask.
So there are two parts to the question. Maybe you can address the first part first.