Fisheries Committee on March 24th, 2015

[Patrick McGuinness]

Well, I should say that basically we've been in the fishing business for quite a long time and we know that these things take time. Our members are pretty well up to speed on the difficulties of 90 countries coming together to agree on the item. But yes, there is no question that the real issue is basically the approach the EU took with respect to import certification. That is more of a cost item—cost, delays, and uncertainty types of items. As an export industry, with 80% of our business being exports, we run into comparable types of challenges in various markets. So it's an issue, but it's not one on which they are pressing us to move quicker, because we recognize the difficulties that are in play.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. McGuinness.

I'm going to turn over the rest of my time to Mr. Cleary.

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

Thank you, and thank you to the witnesses.

Mr. McGuinness, you're not the first chair of the Fisheries Council of Canada I've had dealings with. I don't know if you're familiar with Gus Etchegary, a former chairman of the Fisheries Council of Canada. He's also former head of one of the largest integrated fishing companies in Canada, Fisheries Products Limited before it was called Fishery Products International. I helped him write a book prior to my being elected to politics called Empty Nets: How Greed and Politics Wiped Out The World's Greatest Fishery. Of course, I'm talking about the cod fisheries off Newfoundland and Labrador. There's a story in the news today, as a matter of fact, about how the northern cod moratorium that was introduced in 1992 and was supposed to last 2 years will probably last at least another 10 years. If it lasts another 10 years, what was supposed to be 2 years will be 33 years.

In that book, Mr. Etchegary, the former chair of the Fisheries Council of Canada, writes about how overfishing, illegal fishing, and mismanagement destroyed the cod fisheries. One of the big criticisms after the institution of the 1992 moratorium was the fact that while Canadians stopped fishing inside the 200-mile limit for northern cod and other species that were in danger, the fishing outside the 200-mile limit did not stop and continues to this day. There are foreign vessels charged regularly outside the 200-mile limit, but the question has been raised about what penalties are instituted by the flagged countries. My answer to that is that practically nothing stops them from further overfishing.

Illegal fishing inside Canadian waters is not seen as a problem because the Canadian Coast Guard and our regulatory forces take charge. Any vessels that illegally fish are brought to court and are prosecuted. Illegal fishing outside the 200-mile limit...and it's different from the United States, you're right, because the United States has the Magnuson-Stevens Act, but it doesn't have a continental shelf that extends outside the 200-mile limit in international waters. Canada is one of the few countries in the world that does. I'm telling you something you do know, Mr. McGuinness, but I'm sure a lot of people around this table don't know, particularly on the other side.

Illegal fishing inside the 200-mile limit is not a problem, but it is a problem outside the 200-mile limit until this day. What will this act, which we've been waiting for for years and which may take years before being instituted, do to help Canada charge and prosecute foreign vessels outside the 200-mile limit where the real problem with illegal fishing exists? What will this do to stop that?

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I hope I was speaking loud enough for Mr. Kent. Mr. Chair, I know he mentioned yesterday in the House of Commons he has a hearing a problem. I hope that he not only heard me today, but also listened.

Thank you.

[Patrick McGuinness]

Just one clarification, you're quite right that Gus Etchegary was chair of the Fisheries Council of Canada. I'm the president, so we have a current chair, Rob Morley from British Columbia.

There's no question that with the decline of the cod fishery in 1992, Canada introduced a moratorium on the fishing of Atlantic cod. Then under the UN FAO agreement in terms of the NAFO organizations, NAFO adopted a moratorium on fishing northern cod roughly in sequence. Both the NAFO organization and the Canadian fisheries management regime with respect to northern cod had a moratorium.

As you say illegal fishing will occur. The powers that we have are through our participation in NAFO, where Canada's coast guard, aircraft, and all that do the surveillance, and hopefully identify those fishing vessels fishing illegally for cod, or whatever, then proceed.

You're quite right. I'll pass it to David for the comment, but this agreement does not in itself enhance or diminish the powers of Canada to operate not only in its own waters, but also within the regional fisheries management organization, such as NAFO. It gives further responsibilities and duties with respect to the importation or transshipment of fish products through Canada. That's what it's targeted at. In my view that's straightforward.

David, you may want to add to that.

[David Henley]

I think Patrick is quite correct. It doesn't change a lot of what's behind the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the NAFO treaty, generally. What it does do, though, is enhance it somewhat, because now it's targeting the market for the product. Ultimately, IUU fish are fish that are caught in that manner. The intention here is to try to make it more difficult for such fishers to land their product, at least within NAFO countries or in countries that are party to the port state measures agreement. Canada is doing its part to do that.

Certainly I would agree that there's not a great deal of illegal, unreported, or unregulated fish being landed in Canada. But if implemented across all countries who ratify the port state measures agreement, this will at least provide some further augmentation, one piece at a time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kamp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing. I appreciate your taking the time, especially getting here under difficult circumstances. We appreciate that.

Let me begin just briefly with you, Mr. Henley.

We've noted your comments about proposed section 13. It sounds like you've been looking for an opportunity to have that section of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act amended at some time, and you think this might be an opportunity. We've taken note of that and need to give a bit more thought to that.

Is the new wording, through the amendments of Bill S-3 now, required by the port state measures agreement that we're trying to ratify, to get our domestic legislation in place? Is there any sort of justification for keeping it the way it is in order to meet the terms of the port state measures agreement?

[David Henley]

That's a very astute question, Mr. Kamp. In fact, I was looking at that earlier. The port states measures agreement does not speak to that level of detail. I can only presume that the drafting in proposed section 13 of the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act at some point in the past mirrored the existing drafting in subsection 71(2) of the Fisheries Act. But to answer your question, no, it would not be required by the port states measures agreement.

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

Okay, thank you for that.

One more question. When we spoke to the officials from the department, they raised the possibility of a couple of areas that might need amendment or that could benefit from amendment to Bill S-3. I want to maybe just mention one of them to you to see if that caught your attention as well. That was in proposed section 14, where, as I understand it—and you can correct me if I'm wrong—the amended act will allow officials, enforcement officers, to seize fish and fisheries products and other things no matter where they're found, basically, whether they're on a ship or in a warehouse. But as I understand it, they were saying that it wasn't clear that the forfeiture powers of the act would apply to things that were seized in other places besides the ships, and so they suggested that might benefit from an amendment to Bill S-3.

I'm just wondering if you have any comment on that. I know I'm catching you by surprise on that, perhaps, but I just wondered if you had taken a look at that as well.

[David Henley]

We didn't see that as an issue and it hasn't been raised by our membership. But a very quick glance at that section does suggest that it is tied to a fishing vessel, so I can see where that might be a concern if you're looking to be able to seize more broadly. I wouldn't have thought that our members would have raised that potential.

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

Okay. So I think we will be taking a look at an amendment there.

Mr. McGuinness, I know you've had a lot of experience in this and I appreciate your role in the International Coalition of Fisheries Associations. When you were an observer during the negotiation and development of the port states measures agreement, is it accurate to say that all 16 country associations that you were representing were in favour of the agreement?

[Patrick McGuinness]

I would say yes. I mean, some associations would be silent, if you will, on the issue, but basically we meet once a year, generally in Rome, and then we have meetings with the FAO. These positions are put as resolution types of issues and are passed or not passed. This resolution in terms of support of the port state agreement was passed. I can only assume from this that they are in support of that.

I must admit that what we've tried to generally, in terms of the 16 countries that we have, is actually recruit fisheries associations that we think measure up to the standards that are consistent with the Fisheries Council of Canada and the National Fisheries Institute. So we are, if you will, identifying a relatively select group.

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

Okay.

The problem of IUU fishing that the port state measures agreement is addressing, in part at least, is a serious problem I think globally. It's true to say, though, that we're talking about fishing that takes place on the high seas, almost. Is that accurate? We're not talking about within a country's economic zone?

[Patrick McGuinness]

Really, the problem with the IUU fisheries is pretty much promoted by the NGO group, if you will. It's very vague as to what an unreported and unregulated fishery is. In our context, we're talking about illegal fishing. That's something you can identify.

Say, for example, that one of the countries the United States has on its radar is Ghana. The largest protein product traded in the world is fish and seafood, and about 60% of that trade is from developing countries. In Ghana you could have, for example, an artisanal fishery that is relatively significant in terms of the economy, significant in terms of the Ghana situation, and it's a fishery that's not regulated. There's no quota or things of that nature. At the same time, it's not illegal, because they're not breaking any laws.

As we move out on this issue, and once we get through this, the fishing world is going to have ask what they really want to address. The issue that we want to address is illegal fisheries, both domestically and on the high seas. For example, in terms of the push in the United States by environmental groups that we have to get IUU fishing under control, the groups Oceana and WWF reviewed about 16 or 17 countries, including Canada. They basically identified some 10% of Canada's inshore lobster fishery as being illegal. With illegal, there's no border, if you will. Basically it's with respect to domestic fisheries and those on the high seas. But from our perspective, the real target and the area to really address is high seas fishing. We feel that if we can focus on high seas fishing and also transshipment on high seas, that will really put the push on it.

In terms of its being a global issue, in North America and the major markets in the EU, it's not necessarily an issue. It is an issue in the marketplaces that are really developing, such as China. China is now our third-largest market for Canadian fish and seafood. The United States is number one, Canada number two, and China number three. With the amazing types of advancements in Russia of.... Well, it was Russia.

It's in those areas that IUU fishing is in fact getting into the marketplace and sold. In Canada, the United States, England, Germany, it may be about 2% or 3% of the market.

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

Does Canada have fishing enterprises that primarily fish on the high seas?

[Patrick McGuinness]

No. Say, for example, when the shrimp were on the 3M, the Flemish Cap, we would have one vessel that would have a limited quota of shrimp. Therefore, it would be going outside Canada's zone into the NAFO area, and this would be highly regulated.

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

I think you mentioned this, but do you see the port state measures agreement as a benefit to developing countries, which have their own set of problems, being in some cases unable to enforce their own economics, never mind the other obligations here? Is this a good thing for developing countries? Do you see them getting onside with this, addressing the problem they're part of, I assume?

[Patrick McGuinness]

The negotiations took a long time, but basically it was signed by 90 countries, and a lot of those were developing countries. I think it is a good thing for them, because, if in fact they ratify it, and if they have the infrastructure to actually implement it, it will give them something to put on the table in the markets of North America and Europe regarding their authenticity and things of that nature.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Thank you, Mr. Kamp.

Mr. MacAulay, go ahead.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and welcome to our witnesses.

As an example, Mr. McGuinness, could fish exports from Ghana enter this country with this legislation legally because Ghana is not breaking any laws. Is that correct?

[Patrick McGuinness]

Yes.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I just wonder, if NAFO put a moratorium on the cod fishery at the same time we did.... On the illegal side of fishing on the high seas, we have no power whatsoever to deal with these vessels unless they come into port. Is that correct?

[Patrick McGuinness]

That's my understanding.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

When we have a moratorium on the cod fishery and other countries are fishing the cod, it's kind of difficult for the fishermen to take, but we live in this world, and that's the way it is. I just wonder, if you have these massive trawlers fishing on the high seas and they offload onto other vessels, which then come into our port, how is this certified? How is it legally handled to make sure that this fish is fished in a legal manner? Do you have any examples of that?

[Patrick McGuinness]

What the FAO is doing is trying to develop what we would call a black list. The black list is basically vessels and transshipment vessels that have been determined to be fishing illegally.