Fisheries Committee on March 31st, 2010

[Nadia Bouffard]

That's a really good question, actually. The Asian markets have not demonstrated a desire and interest at this point to look at the eco-labelling or the sustainability demand, if other than to consider it. Some of the producers, particularly in China, are looking at this issue from the stuff that they produce to export into markets where they demand it. But for their own internal domestic markets, it's not an issue. The safety issue is a much bigger issue for them than sustainability is.

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

So are Japanese harvesters or producers engaged in any sort of eco-certification exercise, either government-led or...?

[Nadia Bouffard]

Neither one is. I know that the Marine Stewardship Council has offices in Japan and has just recently opened one in China, so there's a bit of that as well happening in terms of trying to get them onside. Some of these countries are involved or have some industries involved in IUU fishing, or have some challenges with respect to some of the operations they have.

So a lot of the work that the ENGOs are doing is trying to bring them onside to improve the way they manage fisheries and aquaculture in a more sustainable way.

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

I think all of us can get a sense of the value to fisheries in general, sustainability of fisheries, through the eco-certification process. But I think we also have a sense that it could be susceptible to getting out of control. It's been going on for a number of years now. Organizations, and even those as well meaning as the Marine Stewardship Council, tend to find ways to justify their own existence by evolving—some would say devolving—over time.

Have we seen any of that? Is the process becoming more difficult? Are they putting more and more hoops that you need to jump through or does it seem fairly under control?

[Nadia Bouffard]

It's something that the industry is watching very closely, particularly the industry that's involved in MSC processes. They're worried about the bar being lifted with time.

There are two things to look at in respect to that. Ecosystems management—we learn about new things in the ecosystem every day. So our management has to adapt to that information. I have no doubt that eventually there'll be some different things for us to look at in the context of management and science. Therefore these eco-labels may have to adapt to that.

On the other side, these organizations and this industry paying into getting the certificates and trying to maintain them are not going to want the standards to start moving up with the process. What I have seen with the FAO guidelines adopted in 2005 is that a lot of them are trying to change their processes to adapt and conform to the FAO guidelines. Some of them have changed their processes. The Marine Stewardship Council has heard, loud and clear from the industry around the world, that their processes need to be more business minded and more cost effective. So they're also trying to adapt in that respect. I think that's good for competition. It's good for the industry overall to have these kinds of changes happen.

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

Thank you.

Is there time left? I think Mr. Allen has a question or two.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Go ahead.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

One of the areas you didn't have a chance to deal with is aquaculture and the different path. You were talking about a lot of choice but also a lot of confusion. I'm a little bit concerned if we're going one way on one and then another on the other. Could you make a quick comment on that?

[Nadia Bouffard]

There are a lot of options and choices, but the fact that the WWF has tried to pull everybody in a room, trying to move forward on one path the... I'm sorry if I don't have it on the tip of my tongue, but aquaculture is not my area. There's another group that's also...

There seem to be two frontrunners out there, two groups, bringing in a lot of the people involved in the aquaculture production to try to flesh out and firm up their standards and processes in compliance. At the same time, the FAO is looking at guidelines in terms of what these processes should entail and what the standards should be.

I think they have the advantage, which we didn't have in the context of wild capture fisheries, to have those standards being fleshed out at the time they're actually developing the assessment processes. There's the fact that they're bringing everybody into the room together, in the context of the WWF process; they actually have wild capture salmon harvesters representatives together with the aquaculture to look at the different impacts and look at the standards to make sure all the issues are addressed in the standards that set the criteria and the indicators.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Mr. Byrne.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So far, one inherent message here is that this is fraught with peril no matter how you look at it, but the biggest peril is dumping, not to adapt and understand the fact that the marketplace, and indeed jurisdictions, governments, are responding to the need for some sort of assurance that seafood is handled in a certain way.

The question here is what is the appropriate way? How is it labelled? How is it certified, or some combination of the two? You're telling us that Canada, specifically, did some very good work in directing and driving the FAO in its original template for certification back in 2005.

The question now for us as a committee, if we choose to study this further, is to examine what has happened since then in terms of whether we have still maintained that leadership role. It seems to me we've got these private, jingo-driven labels that are the biggest threat to us because they're not accountable. They are more populist driven. There's no good transparency as to how they do business, but yet they're going to pass judgment on every one of our primary fisheries producers. I think that's the biggest threat we have.

So if I'm leaning in a direction, it is toward those that certify using the FAO doctrine. Why haven't we been a little more active in promoting or at least communicating, educating our big retailers like Loblaws that this is the approach to take?

It seems our industry has gravitated to the tougher, more difficult standard called certification. You're telling us our industry is saying certification is the way to go, that the MSC is really the way to go, and I think they're probably very threatened by the jingoistic populist labels, because they're unaccountable and they cannot be budged per se once they get something in their mind.

Would you think it may be a reasonable conclusion that the Government of Canada should have an education process supporting that certification we helped craft as opposed to the jingo-driven labels?

[Nadia Bouffard]

We have been active in talking to folks like Loblaws and others in Canada as well as in the U.S. I did a road show in the U.S. through large cities, talking to large retailers, brokers, restaurant owners, chefs, chefs associations across the U.S. We're going to do the same thing in Europe in some of the large cities there, but mostly through the seafood show in Brussels.

We sit down with them and give them the information. It's important to note that the large retailers have opted to work with environmental NGOs. It's not ignored nor has it not supported MSC-certified fisheries. They recognize these are fisheries that will continue or they will consider purchasing because they recognize the MSC as a gold standard.

So those are not threatened in terms of not being purchased by retailers. Loblaws has said they're going to purchase sustainable fisheries; we will definitely include in that the MSC-labelled fisheries, but we're not going to stop there. We're going to look at other options.

It's important to note it's not because a fishery is not certified or not labelled by MSC, that this means the fishery is not sustainable. We've made that message loud and clear with a lot of the buyers: they need to consider other options. They need to consider information that's available out there, and we've provided that information.

Next week I'll be meeting with a large retailer in Canada, sitting down with them and giving them information on the products they purchase--industry with us, working in partnership.

This is something we do regularly and we have been doing in the last couple of years, Trevor and I and some of his staff and my staff. We have been promoting the information that's out there, and the certification is part of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

Monsieur Blais.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In my view, with a premise that says the market is the lord and master, we hit a wall that can be very dangerous. I would offer the example of the virtual disappearance of cod in the Atlantic. It is to some extent the market, the desire to make a quick buck, and at the same time the global market, that have landed us in the present situation.

I come from the Gaspé, and we have been well aware for several years that everything, or nearly everything, is global, particularly when it comes to forestry, fisheries and natural resources. I understand the market, but I have trouble following it. For example, everyone who lives in a big city, where there is a large population, is very fond of junk food: they flip over Red Lobster. But there is nothing attractive about Red Lobster, and we know very well that junk food isn't good for our health, even if you do end up liking it. That too is supposedly because of the market. So it's very dangerous. That's why I take eco-certification with a grain of salt, if I may say, or in a lot of parentheses or quotation marks.

I would like to hear your thoughts about something. I think it was Fin who touched on it earlier. I see what is happening in other countries. Recently, I saw a report on aquaculture in Chile; it was appalling to see what goes on there. They are also part of the market. We are in the global market, and they will eventually be able to flood the market with their products. I understand that we have some responsibility in this respect, and we don't have the option of just disregarding it.

But I would like to hear your thoughts about this dynamic that we see at the global level. Ultimately, we could get completely muddled; it is becoming a virtual Tower of Babel. How are we going to be able to establish ourselves as we need to and make the best of it?

Even if we act very responsibly in some areas, in relation to certain resources, in exploitation, in processing plants, so things are done right, we may run up against a market that is being flooded by cheap products. Loblaws is not the Bible. What they want is a product that costs as little as possible. That's it, that's all. It may also result in products that are no longer attractive. That also has to be considered. I would like to hear your thoughts on the global perspective, the good and bad players in this respect.

[Nadia Bouffard]

The way we see things at Fisheries and Oceans Canada is that the markets are creating, or have created, an incentive for fisheries to be sustainable. That is where we're heading. As a department, that is what we want, essentially. It is therefore in our interests to support this movement and help our industry get on board with the movement.

Starting from that premise, are the cheaper products on the market facing competition? Certainly. The question of sustainability may affect those products, in the sense that they will be a little more expensive eventually. But we are not seeing that at this point. At the big retailers, we aren't seeing a price difference between products labeled sustainable and those that aren't.

Apparently, Chile has its own assessment and certification mechanism or process for the sustainability of its salmon and aquaculture products. It is also involved in global processes, however. So it is probably going to take the same direction as the rest. What I see from Iceland and other countries that have created their own assessment system is that they are often the ones who have a large market share and can decide what they are prepared to supply to the market. So we have to recognize who has power in the market, and what choices are possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Monsieur Blais.

We'll go to Mr. Donnelly.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you.

I'd like one clarification, and I have one other question.

It seems to me that there are two emerging certification processes for aquaculture. You mentioned WWF, and I think I might have missed the other one. There is FishWise, FishChoice, and various others.

I'm wondering what the other one is, the competing one.

[Nadia Bouffard]

It's Global Aquaculture Alliance. One is based on WWF standards and one is based on Global Aquaculture Alliance standards.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

That's great. Thank you.

A fishery may be out there that may not have certification but may very well be sustainable and operate very well. On the contrary, on the flip side, could a fishery receive certification and not be sustainable or not operate at a certain standard?

[Nadia Bouffard]

That depends on the assessment process for getting the certificate. As I said, there are some organizations that if you pay them $5,000, they ask a few questions and you get the certificate. There are questions about the credibility of that process and whether they're actually looking at sustainability.

It's also a question of how you define sustainability. In my view, an industry that goes through an MSC assessment and that is certified is sustainable. It's a very thorough process. The indicators are very strong. They cover sustainability from an ecological perspective. They cover the target stock, the ecosystem's impacts, and the actual management of the fishery. They really cover the whole range of questions you should be looking at in terms of sustainability for a fishery.

[Fin Donnelly, NDP, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Okay, thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we are all impressed with your preparation, the work you have done and your ability to address us in both official languages.

If the writer John Grisham were here today, he might write a novel with a storyline involving criminals who control the certification system, the ones who can

put out of business fishermen, businesses, and companies. I'm wondering what the limits are. What are the constraints that would stop somebody from using these certifications in a malevolent way to exert disproportionate control for the wrong reasons? What's there to stop the nightmare scenario? My colleague Mr. Byrne was saying that there are concerns and fears. Perhaps I'm exaggerating what he was thinking about, but those things come to mind.

[Nadia Bouffard]

I hear those concerns regularly, and obviously we've heard them today. The ENGOs are not accountable to Canadians. They're accountable to their donors, I guess. However, at the end of the day, it's the markets that decide what seafood to purchase. I continue to think that markets are getting more and more informed about what's out there, and they are setting aside those that are not credible and are going with those that they feel are more credible. They're informing themselves more and more about that.

The international community accepts standards. More people are benchmarking what's out there and are actually targeting those that are good and those that are not so good. They are making those studies public, putting them on the websites of their organizations, bringing them to different conferences and organizations... Seafood Choices Alliance created a conference 10 years ago on seafood sustainability. They've been meeting for 10 years. They bring large retailers, restaurants, chefs--

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Let me interrupt, because we heard from one of our colleagues who said he looked at the world from a glass half-empty; it's hard to imagine anyone in this committee having that perspective. But what if someone set out to really push others out of business by promoting a brand and making sure that nobody but his or her supporters could qualify? What are the sanctions that would prevent somebody from using these for the dark side?