Evidence of meeting #43 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was questions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
I move that Bill S-3, in clause 4, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 4 the following:
(3) No person shall import any fish or marine plant that is not accompanied by the documentation required by regulation.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
It has been moved by Mr. Kamp that clause 4 be amended at the end, after line 18. I believe you all have the text in front of you.
On the amendment, Mr. Kamp.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
If I can just say this, we're presenting four amendments, and three of them have to do with the regulation-making authority.
In a nutshell, it became clear to officials that while we had already in law the ability to make regulations with respect to regional fishing management organizations like NAFO, to which we belong, it wasn't as clear that we have the ability to make those regulations, for example, if we wanted to adopt measures that were part of an RFMO to which we were not a party. Basically, these three amendments—this one, the one on clause 5, and the one on clause 16—have to do with filling that gap.
Conservative
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Mr. Kamp, could you explain it a bit more? I don't fully understand it. When they were importing previously, would the documentation not need to have been there? What change would it be, really?
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Okay. I'll try, and then we may want to draw from the officials as well.
Many other regional organizations that fish on the high seas have their own trade-tracking systems. If we, as a port state, want to say that they have to provide us with some documentation relative to the RFMO to which they are a party, and if Canada is not a party to that RFMO, it wasn't clear in legislation whether...or it appeared clear that we didn't have the authority to make a regulation requiring that individual to provide the kind of documentation that was required by the RFMO. That's a little complicated, I know, and Angela and others might be able to clarify this further.
The second amendment, to clause 5, is the one that gives the regulation-making authority, and this regulation basically says that it's an offence not to do this once that's in place.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
But the rules were not in place previously if this was taking place. Is that correct, Mr. Kamp?
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
In legislation, there wasn't the authority to make a regulation to require somebody who belongs to another regional fishing management organization to which we're not a party to provide that documentation, even if they come into our ports.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Would the officials like to come forward? Can they offer any more?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Please identify yourself for the translation and the subsequent committee evidence.
Angela Bexten Acting Director, Global Fisheries & Marine Governance Bureau, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Thank you. My name is Angela Bexten and I'm the assistant director in the global and northern affairs bureau for external relations, Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Perhaps I can explain the answer by way of a specific example. IUU fishing, of course, is a problem and port state measures are one solution, but a specific example is tuna. Tuna species generally, and some more than others, are high-value species, so they can be subject to illegal fishing. Canada is a member of a number of RFMOs, and, as has been explained, we have the regulation-making power in the existing act to make regulations with regard to RFMOs to which we are a party. We are not a party to every RFMO that fishes tuna, but we import that tuna.
For example, the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission is an RFMO to which we are not party, but Canada does import tuna from that area. The amendment would allow us to make regulations with regard to a trade tracking system that the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission could put in place. It would allow us to put in regulation that if that tuna is not accompanied by the catch documentation that's required by the RFMO, then we can put that into our regulations.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
Thank you very much.
I want to ask you a further question on tuna. Is how the fish is caught in the Indian Ocean have anything to do with the regulation? Some people fish tuna quite differently from how we fish tuna in Canada. Do we have any input into how the fish is caught in the Indian Ocean?
It's a migratory stock: I'm talking about the bluefin tuna. The problem that I hear and I'm not sure about is that sometimes they take a lot more fish than they should. To go back to how we started in this committee, if somebody takes the fish, no matter where it is, if it's a migratory stock the fish are not there. I'd like you to elaborate. Do we have any say, or does it give us more say on how the fish are fished, the means that are used to capture these fish?
Acting Director, Global Fisheries & Marine Governance Bureau, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
With regard to an RFMO to which we are not party, then we are not part of that decision-making process, so the answer, quite succinctly, is no.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
How do we become part of that RFMO? Just so I understand, because it's quite important in my area, if they're fished in a manner that we feel is not proper, how do we deal with that, or is there a way to deal with that, or is there a way to become part of it?
Acting Director, Global Fisheries & Marine Governance Bureau, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
This is a broader question than I'm prepared to answer. I would simply say that the issue of whether we become a member or become a party to a treaty that creates an RFMO, relates to a number of different factors, one of which is whether we fish in that particular area. But this issue is about making sure that the harvest of product in other parts of the world follows the rules that are set by those RFMOs in terms of the trade-tracking requirements. It's up to the RFMO members to determine what is allowed as far as fishing gear and fishing approach are concerned, and what is allowed in terms of the total allowable catch.
