Information was also obtained from a variety of other sources: a number of 

 specialists were employed to gather information and analyze problems; the Depart- 

 ment of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of Environment, Bntish Columbia's 

 Ministry of Environment, and international regulatory commissions provided infor- 

 mation and assistance: official studies and reports, as well as academic and other 

 published documents were also used. And finally, information was gathered m 

 informal ways through conversations with fishermen in pons, by tours of fish plants 

 and trips with commercial and recreational fishermen, and by visits to research 

 stations and to traditional Indian fishing camps. Some of this information is con- 

 tained in the supplementary documents listed in Appendix C. 



While I encountered a number of difficulties in organizing and conducting this 

 inquiry, the administrative arrangements with the government in Ottawa proved to 

 be the most frustrating. They have been entirely unsuitable for a Commission of this 

 kind, which by its nature must not only be independent in carrying out its work but 

 expeditious in recruiting staff and canying out its business. Having to deal with 

 three departments of the federal government. I encountered excruciating delays in 

 obtaining the necessary approvals to hire expert assistance, excessive paperwork, 

 and delays of months in payments to my staff. This has added considerably to the 

 cost of this Commission in both time and money. I emphasize that these difficulties 

 are not attributable to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Vancouver, which 

 assisted the Commission at ever>' opportunity, nor to any individual, but rather to 

 the system of financial and administrative control involving the Department and the 

 Treasury Board in Ottawa. This has proven to be an obstacle rather than an aid to 

 efficiency and economy in conducting this investigation. 



To design an appropriate policy for the future, and to implement it successfully, 

 the cooperative participation of those who will be most directly affected by it is 

 essential. 



... it is the establishment of a cotnmon interest, collectively viewed, that 

 is paramount. It is the resolution of conflict and the re-direction of effort 

 toward common interests and goals which will make the system work to 

 the greater benefit of all. Consultation is not the end — it is only one of 

 the means.^ 



This Commission has set the stage for this cooperation. It has induced those with 

 interests in the fisheries to articulate their problems and to suggest policy changes 

 that are defensible in the face of conflicting viewpoints. The interchanges at public 

 hearings have broadened each group's appreciation of the problems of others and 

 tempered uncompromising positions. And coverage of the process by the public 

 media has alerted a broader public to the need and possibilities for policy improve- 

 ments. 



Those involved in the fisheries recognize that these changes must be major if our 

 resources are to be properly managed and if we are to realize the potential benefits 

 they are capable of yielding. In spite of serious differences of views, commercial, 

 sport and Indian fishermen, as well as others with interests in the natural environ- 

 ment and other industries, are not only willing to participate in the next phases of 

 policy change but are anxious to do so. 



The present disarray on the Pacific Coast of Canada is so extreme that 

 the fundamental issues must now be examined, and major solutions 

 identified. We are convinced that such solutions are available, and that 

 they must be implemented in a very short period of time. A commitment 

 is required from all participants to make the necessary and perhaps 

 painful adjustments. . . .' 



