Fisheries Committee on March 12th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cleary.

Mr. Kamp, please.

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

Thank you, gentlemen, for returning.

Welcome, Ms. Bexton. We're glad to have you here.

I think we had most of our questions answered the other day, but let me start by saying that our understanding is that the reason we're dealing with this legislation is for us to be able to ratify the port state measures agreement. It requires some change to our domestic legislation in order to do that. As you said, Mr. Rosser, although it may not be a big problem here, IUU fishing within Canadian waters is a significant international problem and we want to be good citizens of the world.

Following up on where Mr. Cleary started, and I think it's a valid question, I am wondering, if for some reason we don't get to 25—we get stuck at 20—and this port state measures agreement never comes into force, if there is anything in these amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act where we would say that if we'd known this agreement was never going to be in force, we wish we hadn't done that.

Is there anything in this bill that should concern us? We want to be a participant and a good citizen and ratify the port state measures agreement, and I know we're using our influence to do as much as we can to ensure it does come into force, but if it doesn't, is there anything in here that would make our life more difficult, or if we'd known that it wasn't going to come into force, we'd wish we hadn't done something to our domestic legislation?

[Tom Rosser]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his question.

I am of the view that you could characterize this piece of legislation as a no regrets bill, in the sense that while its intent is to bring us into compliance with an international treaty, I think the bill also has benefit to our law enforcement capabilities in Canada with respect to the importation of fish and fish products as well as the enforcement activities we undertake with respect to foreign fishing vessels.

Even if the treaty is never entered into force internationally, I think we would be better off with the passage of this bill. While there may be, in terms of definitions and things, things that we may not have included had it not been for the international agreement, I don't think there is anything in this bill as drafted that we would regret having proposed should the international treaty not enter into force.

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

Thank you very much. That's good to know.

Somewhat related to that, is there anything in the amended Coastal Fisheries Protection Act—the amendments we're making in Bill S-3—that directly impacts Canadian fishers or Canadian fishing operations in some form? In other words, are we making their life more difficult in some way, adding red tape or something like that?

[Tom Rosser]

No.

In terms of the domestic fishery sector, this bill is targeted exclusively at foreign fishing vessels. It will have no impact on the domestic fishing sector.

Insofar as it helps to curtail IUU fishing, it will be beneficial for the domestic fisheries sector, because one of the detrimental impacts of IUU fishing is that it depresses pricing in global markets for fish products.

The bill also could have some impact on importers of fish into Canada, although we are of the view that those impacts will be very minor in nature. It will have no impact whatsoever on Canadian-flagged fishing vessels.

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

Do I understand correctly that these importers will require documentation from these foreign-flagged enterprises before they can import their product, or am I missing that?

[Tom Rosser]

Because the bill will for the first time cover the importation of fish products into Canada, for those importing any kind of product into Canada, there would be some requisite forms that need to be filled out and that kind of thing. With the regulations that could follow the passage of this bill, there might be some incremental effort required on the part of importers of fish products to comply with the legislation.

The cost associated with this and the burden is something that will be explicitly analyzed and considered in the process of bringing into force regulations pertaining to this bill, if and when it receives royal assent. We believe, though, that they will be very minor in nature, and again, they will have no impact whatsoever on Canadian-flagged fishing vessels.

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

Okay, good. Thank you for that.

In the few minutes I have left, let me return to the notion of amending Bill S-3, which amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, thus amending the amendments so as to have in the end a Coastal Fisheries Protection Act that is as robust as it can be.

We talked about a couple of areas in the last meeting. If I understand correctly, one of the areas is we have the right in our current legislation to put in place regulations for documentation, if we're a party to a regional fishing management organization, but it's not as clear that we can require documentation if we're not a party to that organization. It might be good to put that in this bill as an amendment. We've already given the clerk some possibilities.

The amended Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, with the current Bill S-3 amendments to it, would say:

No person shall, in connection with the importation of any fish or marine plant, transport...knowing that it was taken, harvested, possessed, transported...contrary to any of the following:

Then it lists:

(a) an international fisheries treaty or arrangement to which Canada is party...;

We understand that. Then it also says:

(b) any conservation or management measures of a fisheries management organization of which Canada is not a member that is prescribed by regulation;

Is it that last phrase, “prescribed by regulation”, that sets the issue here, that we need to provide the authority for the government to put in place a regulation requiring documentation even from parties that are part of an RFMO we're not a member of?

Help me understand the necessity for this amendment, which we talked about the other day.

[Tom Rosser]

Again, Mr. Chair, I'd like to thank the parliamentary secretary for his question.

I think my colleague, Ms. Bexten, is perhaps best placed to offer some clarification on this issue.

[Angela Bexten, Acting Director, Global Fisheries & Marine Governance Bureau, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

The short answer to your question with regard to documentation is that this provision in paragraph (b) of proposed subsection 5.6(1) would not be sufficient in regard to documentation. What we would do there by regulation is simply indicate for which regional fisheries management organizations Canada would be interested in implementing or looking at the conservation and management measures.

It would be clearer, especially for importers, if the documentation requirements could be more clearly indicated in regulation, and currently that enabling provision does not exist in the bill.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kamp.

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

First off, I want to welcome you here again. I hope that whatever figures you have on illegal fishing that were brought up previously can be forwarded to this committee. That's what we're dealing with, and the committee needs that.

Two years ago, Foreign Affairs was before the Senate committee on this, and they indicated that they expected this agreement to be ratified in about two years. That was two years ago, and if I understand correctly, Mr. Rosser, you expect it will be a year and a half to two years before it will be ratified.

For information for the committee, how many countries have ratified this, how many countries have it before their legislators, and just where are we with this agreement as it stands today?

[Tom Rosser]

My recollection is that we have seen 11 countries accede to the treaty to date, but we require a minimum of 25 for the treaty to enter into force globally. I further understand that the number that have signed the treaty signalling their intent to ratify it are at some stage in the process of moving towards accession to it, in numbers that I think are around 30 to 35, but certainly they are well in excess of 25. There are many countries like us that have signalled their intention to ratify it and are in the midst of moving through their domestic processes to give effect to that.

The other point which I think is important here is on two of our trading partners that are the most important in the fisheries and seafood context. These are the European Union, which has ratified the treaty, and the U.S., which has signed it. However, beyond the port state measures agreement, they have taken other measures that clearly indicate they take the global problems of IUU fisheries very seriously and are taking measures to curtail the import of IUU products into their respective markets.

It is important for us to play a leadership role to signal to them that we will be good partners in those global efforts.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Representing the bureaucracy, do you feel that overfishing is a major problem in this country or not? That was in my colleague's question and answer, I think.

The government cut $4.2 million from the offshore surveillance budget. Was that money needed or was it not needed? I'd like you to reflect on whether there is as much surveillance and if there is, how can that be when we took $4.2 million out? Has it had any effect on what we're doing?

We need the information. We need to know what's going on and how much illegal activity is taking place.

I'd like you to expand on that, if you would.

[Tom Rosser]

Mr. Chair, I will certainly try to elaborate, and I may turn to my colleague, Mr. MacLean, for his thoughts as well.

All available evidence suggests that at a global level IUU fishing is a serious problem and has a significant impact both on ocean ecosystems and global markets for fish and seafood products. All available evidence also suggests that Canada is a very minor contributor to that global problem. By global standards, the problem is small here.

Where we would be able to offer data to the committee is on enforcement actions that have been taken against those accused of illegal fishing activities. What we don't know, and what is almost by definition unknowable, is what level of activity has taken place that has gone undetected. All available analysis and evidence suggest that it's a small problem in Canada, but we can't confidently say it doesn't exist either.

In terms of this bill and enforcement activities, we believe that our enforcement regime in Canada is a robust one. We believe that this legislation will make it more so and will allow us to make better use of available enforcement resources by, among other things, enabling more effective collaboration between domestic law enforcement agencies, and where warranted, between Canadian law enforcement agencies and their relevant counterparts overseas.

Allan, I don't know if that's fair or if you have anything to add.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

If I could intercede for a moment, when this is ratified, and hopefully it will be, I expect that an information sharing network will be developed.

What type of information sharing will take place? Who will it be shared with, and will this be a global sharing network? I'm thinking about what goes on with security intelligence and this type of thing. You have to know what other countries are doing.

What kind of network do you expect to have in place to make sure that at DFO you know about the people who are not complying?

[Tom Rosser]

I think I will turn to my colleague to answer that one, but in general, there of course is collaboration on monitoring on the high seas and elsewhere. Internationally, there is good collaboration between the relevant law enforcement agencies now—

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Then what is this piece of legislation?

[Tom Rosser]

What it will do is enable existing collaboration and information sharing to happen more effectively than is possible now at a high level. That's my understanding, but Allan is better placed to answer that question than I.

[Allan MacLean]

Thank you, Tom.

The bill will allow greater collaboration between us and the Canada Border Services Agency, which has the responsibility for product entering into Canada. It will clarify the rules around exchanging information. It will allow both departments to access databases that hold valuable information on fishing activities and products that are coming into Canada. This bill in itself really enhances the ability for the two key partners to work together.

On an international scale—and I think this is what you've been getting at—the issue of IUU fishing has really taken on much greater interest. Canada is actively involved with Interpol. We have a number of different working groups that we sit on in Interpol and that focus specifically on IUU fishing and ensuring timely exchange of information.

As you said, Mr. MacAulay, we need to know what's happening elsewhere. We have a mechanism through Interpol. We also have a mechanism through another organization called the International Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Network.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Allan.

Mr. Rosser, in your opening statement, you indicated that one ship that you know of was intercepted and taken into port. I was wondering about that. I would like to ask you about this. If they're beyond the 200-mile limit and it's illegal fishing and you know it, what happens? Does this give us any more power?

Number one, if the flagship country does not wish to have that vessel confiscated, or if it does, what are the differences? Will you have the authority to go out and take that ship into port if it's fishing illegally? It's like what happened here a number of years ago, not for the fishing, but for the net itself, and you know what I'm referring to. Can that type of thing take place? What does this do to make it so that we catch the people who are fishing dishonestly?

[Allan MacLean]

There are clearly processes under regional fisheries management organizations that deal with vessels that are fishing illegally, and processes that are put in place. This particular bill really will focus on where a flag state requests a vessel to come into Canadian port to be inspected in a Canadian port.

This gives the government—gives the minister—the ability to allow that to happen, whereas previously we did not have it. It was only upon the request of the master of the vessel that the minister would issue a permit for that vessel to enter into port. This does give increased powers to the minister when a flag state requests a vessel to enter a Canadian port for the purpose of inspection.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, but what happens if the flagship state or the vessel does not wish to enter our port and we know, or you have information through the information sharing network, which hopefully is set up.... I agree that there's some of it taking place right now, and I certainly hope it improves. Is there a way that we can do something with a vessel that's out there and fishing illegally so that we will be able to confiscate that vessel and take it into port? Is there anything in this bill to do it?

[Allan MacLean]

There is nothing specifically in this bill that would address that issue.