Fisheries Committee on Oct. 20th, 2009

[William Brodie]

The contracting parties, the member countries of NAFO, conduct the scientific research. They pay the bills.

In Canada's case, for example, we have large-scale ecosystem surveys that cover the Canadian continental shelf and the areas outside the 200 miles. Canada would be a heavy contributor to the NAFO science, as would some of the other contracting parties. The European Union, for example, also conducts surveys in the regulatory area and would pay for that research as well. Some of this is done jointly with other contracting parties such as Canada.

As I say, the Scientific Council is not a research organization per se. It has no funding for research. But the contracting parties bring their research to the table. It's discussed openly. If there are things that need to be done, for example, the Scientific Council is free to make recommendations that the countries can then take back and make a decision on in terms of whether they can be added to the research programs.

The Scientific Council also provides a forum for a discussion of the different research, and it allows for coordination and collaboration where possible.

The short answer is that it's paid for by the member states of NAFO.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

I guess as a follow-up, do all 12 member states pay their way? Do they do their share?

Is the Scientific Council--or is anybody--overseeing the process and deciding what research does need to be done to effectively manage sustainable fisheries in the regulatory area?

[William Brodie]

To answer your first question, no, not all the contracting parties are active in research in the NAFO area.

And second, yes, the Scientific Council does provide a body to oversee. One of its standing committees is research coordination. It does provide the oversight and the chance to review those research programs, and it offers contracting parties the ability to discuss these openly and to join in the research as necessary.

So there is that opportunity within the Scientific Council, but not all the contracting parties participate in research.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

In your comments, Mr. Brodie, you said that NEAFC, for example, in the northeast Atlantic doesn't have the equivalent of the Scientific Council. It instead kind of contracts out its science work to an external body--ICES, I think, in this case.

What do you think about that? Do you think there would be some benefit in NAFO considering that? Do you think there are some downsides, perhaps, in having in-house science work? I know there are benefits as well, but in having the commission, the managers, and the scientists all working together, are there some downsides? Would there be some benefits to having some independence on the science side perhaps?

[William Brodie]

As I noted, it's important for the Scientific Council to maintain its status as an equal constituent body within NAFO. That ensures independence. The Scientific Council does not report to any of the other bodies in NAFO; it's equal. It does respond to requests for information from the Fisheries Commission and from coastal states like Canada, but it also conducts...and is free to provide information of its own accord. I think that's an important consideration.

With regard to the existence of the management body and the scientific body within NAFO, I think that affords some opportunities for collaboration. We've seen some very recent examples. With regard to implementation of the precautionary approach, that was done over a long period of time with joint meetings of science and managers. I think a more recent example is the working group of fisheries managers and scientists that looks at the vulnerable marine ecosystems, the corals and sponges. I think that enables the scientists and the managers to openly discuss the information and to go forward with reasonable management measures to offer protection. In fact, that was the case at the recent meeting, when that working group provided very specific recommendations that were then adopted within the commission.

So with regard to the existence of managers and scientists within the organization, I think those are two positive examples of cooperation and collaboration that led to some good measures being implemented.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you.

We'll see if Mr. Stanton or Ms. O'Neill-Gordon have any questions.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

I have one that's very straightforward. Being the new member on this committee and coming from a fishing community, I just wonder, are there any fishermen on this Scientific Council? Do they have any input on that?

[William Brodie]

No, the Scientific Council is made up only of scientific representatives. The council itself is made up only of scientists. However, in the process of discussing the science, there are discussions within Canada—I can only speak within Canada—with the fishing industry to get their views on particular stocks and what they think of the science, what they see on the water. That is conducted on an ongoing basis for all the stocks. There are various informal committees set up in Canada to allow us to hear the fishermen and the views of industry and its representatives.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

One minute.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I have just a short question.

In your opinion, do the NAFO amendments strengthen Canada's position in respect of its sovereignty over the fishery?

[William Brodie]

With all due respect, that's a little bit outside my area of expertise as a scientist.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. Brodie and Mr. Gillis, I'd like to thank you on behalf of the committee for taking the time to join us today. Thank you once again.

The meeting is adjourned.