Fisheries Committee on March 10th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I call this meeting to order.

I would like to thank our witnesses for appearing before us here today. Before we get into our scheduled business, I'm going to turn the floor over to Monsieur Lapointe.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.

I would like to draw the committee's attention to a motion I previously moved. It reads as follows:

That the Committee hold at least one meeting as soon as possible to consider the listing of Atlantic Sturgeon under the Species At Risk Act (St. Lawrence populations), that the Committee make recommendations regarding the possible ecological, cultural and economic impacts of listing these populations under the Species At Risk Act, in accordance with the Fisheries and Oceans Canada consultations ending on February 27, 2015, and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House at its earliest convenience.

I will be taking a few moments to make comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

One moment, Monsieur Lapointe.

It has been moved by Mr. Lapointe:

That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans hold at least one meeting as soon as possible to consider the listing of Atlantic Sturgeon under the Species At Risk Act (St. Lawrence populations), and that the Committee make recommendations regarding the possible ecological, cultural and economic impacts of listing these populations under the Species At Risk Act, in accordance with the Fisheries and Oceans Canada consultations ending on February 27, 2015, and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House at its earliest convenience.

On the motion, please continue, Monsieur Lapointe.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The decision of Fisheries and Oceans Canada to hold consultations stems from a recommendation of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or COSEWIC, that dates from 2011. It was recommended that the Atlantic Sturgeon be designated a species at risk. A lot has happened since 2011. Indeed, for the past three or four years, the sturgeon stock has increased.

It is important that the committee consider the following for a few moments. All provincial scientists that monitor this species tell us that if this recommendation were to result in a designation of species at risk, this would, in this particular case, go against the existing policies that made it possible to save the species.

We are talking about a traditional fishery that is threatened, even though it is a major contributor to tourism in Bas-Saint-Laurent and Chaudière-Appalaches. The collaborative relationship between fishers and provincial scientists makes it possible to monitor the species. If we adopt the decision recommended by COSEWIC, which seems to be what Fisheries and Oceans Canada is planning to do, scientists and fishers will no longer be able to maintain the collaboration they have enjoyed for over a decade. Moreover, this collaboration has contributed to the recovery plan for this species.

I am asking the committee whether it is possible to devote even just half of a committee meeting to this question. We would need to meet with the stakeholders who are concerned, so that we can at least forward our views to the House and help the minister realize the danger of going ahead with this decision, which is based on 2011 data and even goes against the current recovery plan for the species.

The stakeholders are not opposed to giving this species a status indicating that it is in some way threatened, but not the at-risk status, as COSEWIC recommended, for the reasons I just explained.

History is much like an onion, in that it has many layers. This would be a way for us, federal representatives, to ensure that the committee is looking into an issue that is of serious concern to provincial authorities. We must send a clear message that collaboration is an option, and that the federal authorities will not remain in their bubble and recommend things that would undermine a recovery plan that has been successful on the ground over the past five years and has led to an increase in the sturgeon stock.

In closing, there are consequences for the maintenance of the sturgeon fishery. As I said, tourism is directly affected. The volume is not very high, but the families involved in this fishery are managing a major tourist attraction along the St. Lawrence. These people are also pleading that we do not do that, because it will be bad for their business and for tourism in the region. In addition, all scientists specializing in the field are telling us that this is not the thing to do.

I hope I have managed to persuade my Conservative government colleagues to give a bit of time to the committee to ensure that the federal government will not make the wrong choice. This would be a mandate that the committee would agree to take in the short term.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Lapointe

Mr. Kamp.

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

Mr. Chair, first of all, let me thank the member for this motion, but I think we should follow our usual practice and go in camera.

I move that we go in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

It has been moved by Mr. Kamp that the committee proceed in camera.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Can we have a recorded vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Yes.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

We'll suspend for a moment while we move in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I'll call this meeting back to order.

I'd like to take a moment to thank the officials for their patience here today.

We're here to consider Bill S-3, and we certainly look forward to hearing from officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on this bill.

Mr. Rosser, I believe you're going to open up with a statement. The floor is yours, Mr. Rosser, and perhaps you want to introduce your colleagues with you as well. Please proceed whenever you are ready.

[Tom Rosser, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I appreciate the opportunity to talk about DFO's role in combatting illegal fishing and to answer any questions about the proposed amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.

Before I do that, though, I'd like to introduce the colleagues here with me today. I'm very pleased to have with me here on my left, Mr. Allan MacLean, director general of conservation and protection. Allan has overall responsibility for enforcement activities at DFO. As well, on my right, I'm very pleased to be joined by Tim Angus, acting director general of external relations. He has overall responsibility for international negotiations for policies on fisheries, oceans, and trade, as well as federal, provincial and territorial relations.

Illegal fishing is a global problem that requires a global solution. One solution was negotiated under the auspices of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, in the form of a new treaty, entitled the “Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing”. It is also called the “Port State Measures Agreement”, for short.

The goal of this treaty is to undermine the economic incentives behind illegal fishing. The key requirement of this treaty is to prevent the trade of illegally harvested fish. This is done by taking action against foreign fishing vessels trying to land illegal catches, and by taking action against other vessels or methods of trying to import illegally harvested fish into countries.

A 2008 study commissioned by the Government of the United Kingdom estimated that global economic loss due to IUU fishing, or illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, ranges from $10 billion to $23 billion U.S. per year, representing 11% to 19% of total global reported legal catch.

Illegal fishing undermines the livelihoods of legitimate fish harvesters, such as Canadian fishermen, because illegal fish harvesters can operate more cheaply and sell their products more cheaply by not following rules and regulations, such as documenting catch, respecting catch limits, applying ecosystem protection measures, and implementing labour requirements. Illegal fishing also undermines efforts to ensure fisheries are sustainably managed and that ecosystems and habitats upon which they rely are appropriately protected.

Canada has a well-regulated fishery, as fishing violations are kept to a minimum and policies for sustainable use are implemented. However, Canadian fish harvesters are part of the global fishing industry and Canada needs to be part of the international effort to stop illegal fishing, even when it takes place in other parts of the world.

As a responsible fishing nation, Canada is committed to implementing efforts that stem the trade of illegally harvested fish and seafood products. Our key trading partners, the United States and the European Union, as well as other responsible fishing allies, continue to work domestically to stop illegal fishing through strong actions at their borders and ports. With our allies, we need to remain vigilant in the face of illegal fishing operators who seek to profit from being out of sight on the high seas.

Bill S-3 is an Act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. Canada already has a robust port State measures regime in relation to foreign fishing vessels. All foreign fishing vessels wishing to enter Canadian waters and ports must apply for and receive authorization from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans pursuant to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Regulations. The minister can issue authorization only if the foreign fishing vessel is in compliance with the conservation and management measures of a regional fisheries management organization.

However, in order to meet the requirements of the port state measures agreement, some amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act are required. The most important amendments in this regard include: number one, expanding inspection enforcement powers beyond the fishing vessel to any place where fish might be transported or stored; number two, strengthening prohibitions on imports of fish and seafood products, including marine plants that are illegally harvested; number three, adding the authority to permit foreign fishing vessels to enter Canadian ports for enforcement purposes; number four, facilitating information sharing among federal agencies and with relevant international organizations for enforcement purposes.

If you permit me, Mr. Chair, I will just review each of them briefly, in turn.

First, we must expand inspection and enforcement powers.

The Port State Measures Agreement makes reference to “container vessels”, as a possible means to transport illegally harvested fish. Although this would be a rare situation at this time, the intention of the negotiators of the agreement was to anticipate and close any potential gaps for how illegally harvested fish might be brought to markets. Should stronger measures be taken against fishing vessels, the idea is to take similar measures in relation to other types of vessels that might be used to transport fish not previously landed.

Of course, we need to avoid creating a burdensome regime for shipping vessels, which is why the definition of “fishing vessels” is carefully drafted. However, it also means that protection officers—whether from DFO or the Canada Border Services Agency—need to have enforcement powers that are not just limited to fishing vessels, but also apply to “any place” where illegally harvested fish may reasonably be kept.

Number two is strengthening prohibitions on imports. The broad scope of the port state measures agreement also means that we need to consider our regime in relation to the import of fish and seafood products. The key tools for determining whether a product should be considered illegal or not are whether the vessel is on the IUU fishing vessel list of a regional fisheries management organization and whether the fish import requires any documentation. It is a growing trend for fisheries management organizations to implement documentation requirements to prevent illegally caught fish from entering international markets. This documentation follows the fish when it is sold and when it is imported or re-exported.

Number three is directing foreign fishing vessels to port for enforcement purposes. The purpose of the port state measures agreement is to make it difficult and expensive for illegal operators to bring their fish to market. Hence, the agreement focuses on denying port entry and port services to vessels that engage in or support illegal fishing.

As mentioned, Canada already has these powers in its legislation. However, we need to be mindful that not all jurisdictions have such strong provisions and that Canada can help others in enforcing international and domestic laws. Thus, the agreement envisions a situation in which a flag state might order one of its vessels to a nearby port for the purposes of inspection and enforcement. Under our current legal regime, authorization to enter any port can be granted only if a vessel requests it. There is currently no mechanism to allow a vessel into our ports at the request of a flag state. If the vessel has violated a rule, then it may well not be inclined to seek entry to port on its own. A new provision needs to be included to allow the minister to authorize entry when the request comes from a flag state rather than the vessel, and in relation to enforcement purposes.

Finally, the amendments provide clear authorities for sharing information among the various federal departments and agencies. This would promote more efficient and better use of resources for enforcement purposes.

In summary, the amendments proposed in Bill S-3 will strengthen and clarify Canada's domestic regime to enable ratification of the Port State Measures Agreement and ensure that Canada maintains its place among countries that are leading the fight against illegal fishing.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to highlight the proposed amendments.

My colleagues and I would be pleased to answer any questions you or the committee members may have regarding this proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rosser.

We'll start off with a 10-minute round, and we'll go to Mr. Cleary first.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you, witnesses, for appearing before our committee.

Newfoundland and Labrador knows all about overfishing, in particular foreign overfishing. The question I'm going to ask you has to do with foreign overfishing, not inside Canadian waters but outside Canadian waters. Inside Canadian waters, I don't see that as a problem. We have the enforcement mechanism in place that makes sure that if there is overfishing, the offenders are brought to court and there are penalties in place.

Since 1992, since the northern cod moratorium has been in place, there have been a lot of frustrated people back home in Newfoundland and Labrador, because while there's been a moratorium on a lot of commercial fisheries inside the Canadian 200-mile limit, there hasn't been a lot of enforcement outside of it.

The foreign vessel most recently cited for illegal fishing on the Grand Banks, I think it was in the Flemish Cap, was the Portuguese vessel Santa Isabel, which was cited on February 9 for exceeding its bycatch of American plaice. The vessel is a repeat offender.

One of the biggest problems we have with the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, NAFO, which regulates fishing outside the 200-mile limit, is that it's up to the home country of a vessel that's been cited to follow through on penalties or court action. Unfortunately, from what I can find out, in a lot of cases not a lot of penalties or court action is taken against a foreign vessel that's cited for illegal fishing outside the 200-mile limit.

I have a very succinct question. How will these regulations strengthen the weakness that we have right now when it comes to foreign overfishing, namely, that it's up to the home country of the vessel in question, the vessel cited, to follow through on penalties with court action? How will this change that?

Also, how often does a flag state order its vessel to a Canadian port? I believe the answer is never, but please feel free to correct me.

[Tom Rosser]

Thank you very much for the questions. I will offer my thoughts and then perhaps turn to colleagues to supplement.

At a global level, this bill is intended to strengthen the global regime to combat IUU fisheries. With respect to the NAFO region, the intent is to respect the regional fisheries management organization, RFMO, as it currently operates, so the amendments in this bill do not propose to change that in any way.

My colleague Mr. MacLean can likely elaborate, but I would say that in general we have a robust partnership under NAFO, and we have seen the number of citations issued decline over time. We have seen recovery in some fish stocks in the area governed by the RFMO, and we believe that this RFMO is working well.

In terms of foreign states directing their vessels into a Canadian port, I am aware of one specific example of that happening. Bear in mind that the principal purpose of this bill is to bring Canada into compliance with an international treaty; so it is true that some of the amendments proposed envisage situations that are rare in Canadian waters, but that one is not without precedent. Although, as I mentioned previously, we do believe that the amendments are intended to bring Canada into compliance with an international treaty, we believe as well that some of these amendments will, in very practical and concrete and common-sense terms, give our fisheries officers and other law enforcement officials better authority, more clear authorities, to collaborate and to do their jobs more effectively.

Allan or Tim, do you have anything to add?

[Allan MacLean, Director General, Conservation and Protection, Ecosystems and Fisheries Management - Operations, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

As my colleague said, this does not change anything in relation to the NAFO measures. I would say that we, in the last number of years, have seen increased cooperation with other contracting parties, in particular the EU, as a result of which we have seen joint inspections and import inspections by EU officials and Canadian officials. We have also developed a joint inspection scheme under which we carry other contracting party officials to conduct joint inspections of vessels. So we have seen significant reductions in the number of vessels that are fishing in the NAFO regulatory area. We're seeing a reduction in the citations being issued.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you, sir. I'm familiar with that. I have only so much time, and I'd like to get on with my next question.

You did mention increased cooperation. One of the problems we have with foreign vessels that are sighted outside the 200-mile limit is that it's up to the home country of the vessel in question to follow through on penalties or court action. The problem is that when we go to those home countries to find out what penalties or court action was imposed, we can't get that information. It's not released by this government, the Government of Canada, because they say it's not in the best interest of international relations. I always make the point that it would be in the best interest of Newfoundland and Labrador relations, but nobody listens to me.

Mr. Rosser, can you, on behalf of the government, release the court actions or the penalties that have been imposed on foreign vessels for illegal fishing outside the 200-mile limit over the past, say, 10 years? Can you release that information to this committee, sir?

[Tom Rosser]

I'll simply say that the bill we were invited to speak on today doesn't affect our relations with NAFO in any way. It wasn't an issue that we came prepared to address. Certainly if it's an area of interest to the committee, I'm sure the relevant officials would be pleased to discuss the issue.

Allan or Tim, do you have anything to add?

[Tim Angus, Acting Director General of External Relations, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

I would just build on the theme that Allan was talking about, information sharing and cooperation.

It is envisaged that once the bill is passed, we'll have the capacity to share information on contraventions, including the refusal to authorize a foreign fishing vessel to enter Canadian waters, and the suspension, amendment, or cancellation of an authorization granted a fishing vessel. We'll have enhanced ability to share information both between federal agencies and with international partners on some of these matters.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I have one last question before I throw it over to my colleague for a quick question.

From what I understand, this UN agreement can only come into force after it's been ratified by 25 nations. How many nations have ratified it?

[Tom Rosser]

If memory serves, 11 have ratified. We clearly haven't reached that threshold.

I have two points to make on that. One, it's our view that Canada is a global leader in combatting IUU fishery and that it would therefore be appropriate that we be at the forefront in moving forward with this. As I mentioned in my remarks as well, two of our principal trading partners certainly when it comes to fisheries and fish products, the United States and the European Union, have very much played a leadership role in bringing this treaty into being and its negotiation. The European Union has ratified it. The U.S. administration has signed it, and there are bills before both houses of Congress, as I understand it, whose intent is to bring them into compliance with it as well.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you, sir, but I would disagree: Canada is not a global leader in protecting its own fisheries. The Grand Banks of Newfoundland are a prime example of that.

Mr. Lapointe, sir.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you very much, Ryan.

There is a particular problem in my riding, and it has to do with the eel. This fish just keeps decreasing despite a host of accommodations made by eel fishers for 10 years. Apparently, one of the main problems is the harvesting of elvers, that is, the baby eels in the Atlantic. More than half of this fishery is apparently illegal, and this goes on because elvers are worth a fortune in the Asian markets.

Does the department have any data on the illegal harvesting of elvers and, if so, could you send us that information?

Also, if there is indeed a problem with the illegal harvesting of baby eels, is there a plan to stop it? This may be very difficult, since a small quantity of elvers is worth a fortune on the Asian markets.

Do you have any such plan?

[Tom Rosser]

Thank you.

In general, when it comes to illegal fishing, it is obviously not easy to obtain accurate data on the situation. Certain analyses enable us to estimate the impact on the markets. We are trying to better focus our efforts to reduce illegal fishing, but this is not an easy issue.

With regard to the illegal harvesting of elvers, I am unfortunately not aware of the efforts we are making to counter it. I will defer to my colleague Mr. MacLean, who may be able to give us more details on this issue.

[Allan MacLean]

Thank you very much.

This fishery is a highly regulated fishery, has a limited number of licences, and it is considered a high-risk fishery. We looked at and assessed this fishery as having a high-risk potential for illegal fishing, and we have numerous plans in place to attempt to deal with this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kamp.