Fisheries Committee on March 12th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

I'll call this meeting to order.

I'd like to thank our guests for coming back again today. I apologize that we were cut short at the last meeting, and we are going to have a short meeting again.

Mr. Rosser, I believe you have a couple of opening comments that you want to make, based on the line of questioning from the last meeting, before we proceed to questions from members. Please proceed.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

You will recall from our testimony here earlier in the week that I was accompanied by Mr. Allan MacLean and Mr. Tim Angus. With your permission, we have also invited Ms. Angela Bexton to join us. Angela was part of the Canadian delegation to the negotiations that led to the port state measures agreement and has been closely involved in our departmental input into the drafting of Bill S-3 as well.

I will make very brief opening remarks, Mr. Chair, and then I would be happy to engage in further questions and answers with the committee.

We appreciate the opportunity to discuss the amendments and further questions. I'd like to reiterate a few points from the discussion earlier this week.

Working towards the ratification of the port state measures agreement provides an opportunity for Canada to strengthen an already robust port measures system in relation to foreign fishing vessels. The amendments being proposed will improve our existing enforcement regime and in our view should be undertaken whether the international agreement existed or not.

As I described on Tuesday, there have been situations in which Canada would have benefited from having the enhanced enforcement authorities in place. For example, a flag state might want to direct its vessel to a Canadian port for inspection purposes to avoid re-calling the vessel to its port and risking the possibility of compromised evidence.

Another example involves the situation in which the fish have already been partially off-loaded to places beyond the reach of existing authorities under current legislation.

Besides enhancing enforcement, the proposed amendments address another important aspect preventing illegal fishing, which is the prohibition of imports of illegally harvested fish products. Once fish enters the domestic market, it is almost impossible to determine how it was harvested, and it is effectively laundered. Thus, stopping illegally harvested fish and seafood products at the border is an essential contribution to the fight against illegal fishing.

States and regional fisheries management organizations are increasingly demanding proof of legal harvest. This is an evolving issue, so the bill as it stands makes some headway towards addressing the issue of prohibiting imports of illegally harvested fish products. More inevitably could be done, but the bill starts this process. The import prohibitions clearly demonstrate Canada's contribution to the global effort, in line with our key export markets, in particular the United States and the European Union.

IUU fishing is a global problem, but it mainly occurs in regions of the world where there is lax governance or limited capacity to undertake enforcement. This is why port state measures are important. Port state measures are considered cost-effective deterrents to IUU fishing activity that help compensate for lax control by flag states. Canada continues to support a suite of tools for monitoring, control and surveillance of fishing activities, but in regions of the world where the capacity for enforcement by the flag state is limited, port state measures can be effective.

As we are working through our domestic processes to enable Canada's ratification of the treaty, we also encourage other states to consider ratifying the treaty. Canada has supported these efforts in regional fisheries management organizations that are developing their own requirements for port state measures based on this international treaty or that are aligning existing requirements with this new global standard. We therefore see the momentum growing for these measures.

Again, speaking on behalf of my colleagues, let me say that we appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chair, to make additional comments, and we welcome further questions.

Merci. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rosser.

We're going to start off with a 10-minute round, with Mr. Cleary leading off.

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

Thank you to the witnesses for returning.

Mr. Rosser, I have a few questions on some statements you just made. One of the statements you made was that a flag state might want to direct a foreign vessel to a Canadian port so as to not compromise the evidence.

To your recollection, sir, in terms of foreign vessels outside the 200-mile limit, not inside Canadian waters, how often has that happened in the past 10 years?

[Tom Rosser]

There is one instance that I'm aware of in which a foreign-flag vessel fishing outside of Canada's exclusive economic zone was directed by its flag state into a Canadian port. But under legislation as currently enacted, my understanding is that unless the boat requests entry into the port itself, which it may not choose to do if it is in violation of applicable laws, we don't currently have the legal authority to accommodate that situation. It has occurred in at least one instance of which I am aware.

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

Okay. That's one instance in the past 10 years that you're aware of. That's out of how many vessels that have been cited, roughly, over the past 10 years?

[Tom Rosser]

I might turn to my colleague. Mr. MacLean might be able to give you a more precise indication of how frequently citations have been issued over the past decade.

Allan, do you have that?

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

I don't know. It might take a minute to get to it—

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

Maybe I'll move on to my next question.

[Tom Rosser]

Yes, and we'll come back on that.

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

Mr. Rosser, you also spoke about the fact that more could, to use your word, “inevitably” be done. Maybe you could expand on that. What more could be done?

[Tom Rosser]

I was trying to allude to the fact that...I mean, as an illegal activity, IUU fishing inevitably evolves over time. While we believe that the port state measures agreement implementation act, Bill S-3, represents an important step forward, inevitably those engaged in illegal activities, as the international legal regime evolves, may too respond to that in some fashion. It is an evolving process. We believe that these are positive, concrete steps, both domestically and internationally, but we need to recognize as well that we are trying to discourage an activity that itself is continually evolving.

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

With all due respect, Mr. Rosser, I don't see this as concrete in any way whatsoever. I don't see this as changing the situation right now outside the 200-mile limit off the east coast of Canada in terms of foreign vessels and in terms of citations. I know that the number of citations is down. I personally would say that part of the reason for that is there are fewer fish to chase.

When you say—there was a question I asked you the other day—that you need the ratification of 25 countries before this can come into force, I believe that right now we have 11. That's 11 of 25 nations. How long did it take you to get 11 nations to come onside with this, and how much longer do you think it will take you to get to your total of 25?

[Tom Rosser]

What I can say is I believe it's true that there have been 11 countries that have acceded to the treaty to date. In addition to that, if memory serves, there are, I think, a total of 35 or so that have signed the treaty or otherwise the state in question has indicated its intent to ratify the treaty. There are dozens of countries, more than enough to bring this treaty into force, that, like ourselves, have signalled an intent to ratify and are moving through to take the necessary domestic measures to do so.

Obviously, regulatory and legislative systems vary widely across the world when one is speaking of a global treaty, but we believe this treaty does enjoy a significant international global consensus around it.

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

How much longer will it take to get 25?

[Tom Rosser]

It's hard to put a precise timeline on it, but as I said, there are dozens of countries going through processes similar to what we are going through now.

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

Could you give a rough estimate?

[Tom Rosser]

This is fairly speculative on my part, but I would hope that within a couple of years we would see this treaty enter into force.

We do believe, though, that beyond simply bringing Canada into compliance with this treaty, this legislation will give our law enforcement officials additional abilities to carry out their responsibilities more effectively. In many cases, there—

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

I'm sorry to cut you off, Mr. Rosser, but I have more questions and I have only limited time. I say this with all due respect, sir.

[Tom Rosser]

Okay.

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

I asked you a question the other day in terms of the number of citations issued to foreign trawlers over the past 10 years outside the 200-mile limit and the follow-up in terms of the flag states, the home countries of the vessels in question. What penalties or court fines were imposed over the past 10 years? Can we have that information presented to this committee, sir?

[Tom Rosser]

What I would say is this. There is—we're speaking, I think, in a NAFO context—a process whereby information is shared by countries undertaking enforcement measures in the NAFO zone. We believe that a greater transparency in that regard would be beneficial.

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

Is that a yes or a no?

[Tom Rosser]

What I was going to suggest was that we would certainly be willing to undertake with the NAFO parties a suggestion that greater transparency be brought to the information sharing—

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

So that means no?