Fisheries Committee on Feb. 10th, 2022

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

My question was about how CFIA verifies the labelling of species authenticity.

Let me go to the question this way. When you referenced that 92% of the samples that you analyzed were labelled correctly, what would 92% of the samples you monitored represent in the overall seafood that would be available? Was it 92% of 5% of the product or was it 92% of 100%? Statistics are statistics, but they tell a different story. Could you elaborate?

[Tammy Switucha]

Yes. Thank you for allowing me to elaborate on that particular study.

That study was done as part of our fraud initiative to gather more intelligence with respect to the extent and scope of misrepresentation in Canada. We targeted specific species in this study. We looked at nine different species that we knew had a history of misrepresentation in the marketplace.

While that's not fully representative of the entire fish and seafood product availability in Canada, it did give us a sense of the amount, generally speaking, of the misrepresentation, so when we point to the 92% compliance or the 8% for non-compliance, that's specific to that study and the parameters of that study and not necessarily representative of the entire marketplace and the entire supply chain.

We know through our studies, however, that along the supply chain the rate of compliance is very high at the production and processing stage. As you get further down the supply chain, into retail and the restaurant level, then the level of non-compliance is higher than that.

We appreciate the questions here. It's important to understand the parameters under which the study was undertaken, because the methodology was quite specific.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

You targeted areas that have a history of misrepresentation of species. Could you advise the committee what species they fall under, or what category?

[Tammy Switucha]

We targeted butterfish, cod, halibut, kingfish, sea bass, snapper—red and other, sole, tuna and yellowtail. As I said, these are known to have a higher likelihood of being misrepresented in the marketplace.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

How would they be misrepresented?

[Tammy Switucha]

In this particular study, the ability to identify something as being misrepresented was based on the regulatory requirements and the fact that these common names did not match with those on our fish list, which matches the scientific name with the common name. In this instance, again, it was specific to verifying whether the guidance we provide to industry was being followed with respect to the scientific names and the common names.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Have there been charges laid as a result of the investigation on the 8% that were labelled incorrectly?

[Tammy Switucha]

We took follow-up enforcement action on all of the non-compliances, and the actions we undertook ranged from letters of non-compliance to fines. There were other enforcement actions. All of those were followed up by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

In the misrepresentation on the labelling, was the origin in Canada or from outside the country of the product that was misrepresented on the label? If you don't have the information, could you provide it to the committee? I would like to know of those that were not in compliance that were mislabelled.

Did the product originate in Canada? Was it caught in Canada or processed in Canada, or did it enter Canada? If you could provide that information, I would appreciate it.

[Tammy Switucha]

Mr. Chair, if you'll allow me, I can provide that information now .

The unsatisfactory results that we discovered as part of this surveillance study revealed that around 12% were misrepresented in grocery stores. That included fish that was packaged at the fishmonger itself within the grocery store, followed by a 5% rate for imported products and a 4% rate by domestic processors.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

We'll now go to Madame Desbiens, for six minutes please.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very pleased to begin this major study on the labelling and traceability of our seafood products.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us.

Since this is my motion, I'm very moved. I must say that my father was a cod fisher and worked in the hotel industry for a large part of his life. I have a quick little anecdote to tell you about that.

My father liked to buy products from Matane, including cod from the St. Lawrence. One day, a distributor who came to see him told him that his seafood products came from Quebec and that they had been fished in the St. Lawrence. When my father opened the box, inside there was a little note that said it was Russian cod. You should have seen it: the box of cod flew right into the garbage can, because my father was so angry.

During the last federal consultation on vessel‑to‑table traceability, which was launched last August, 44% of samples had misleading labelling in the restaurant and retail sector. But you're telling us, Ms. Switucha, that 92% of the samples are properly labelled.

How do you explain the discrepancy between these two percentages?

[Tammy Switucha]

I believe you're referring to the studies that were conducted by non-governmental organizations such as SeaChoice and Oceana. Is that correct?

It's certainly understandable that there may be questions with respect to the differences in the amount of misrepresentation or non-compliance that's seen in both studies. First, I would like to point out that it's important to keep in mind the methodology that was used for both studies. While I don't have information on how those studies were conducted, what their sampling size was or what their overall target was, these are very important parameters to keep in mind. How the sampling was designed can influence the results.

The CFIA understands that the samples collected by Oceana and others were taken from restaurants as well as retail, whereas the CFIA samples were collected from retail stores as well as at the domestic processing and importing levels. We focused our work in the upstream part of the supply chain, while Oceana and others focused their efforts at the other end of the supply chain, so you can see there could also be some differences there.

How they also determined non-compliance needs to be understood. While I don't have that information, from the CFIA's perspective, the non-compliance was based on our regulatory requirements in comparison to our guidance in the fish list. There may have also been different testing used. We don't know what testing methods were used in all of those studies, though the use of DNA testing is currently the gold star that many use. It's important, from a regulatory perspective, to ensure we're comparing apples to apples.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you. That's very interesting.

Does that mean that there could be a gap between the department's studies and the reality in the field?

Is the problem that the two can't be combined in a more comprehensive study, in other words, monitoring the entire chain?

[Tammy Switucha]

We've really valued Oceana's and SeaChoice's studies. We've met with them several times over the past several years to further understand their research and look at their data. We have worked with them to update and change a lot of the guidance we have available to stakeholders to make sure they use the labelling guidance properly.

There has been quite a bit of collaboration between Oceana, SeaChoice, universities and other academic studies, because the problem of fish misrepresentation in Canada really requires a collective effort, and we need to all work together as we all collect data and understand the problem further and share that information. I'm pleased to say we've been doing that quite regularly. Oceana has been very forthcoming in sharing its information. We benefit from that, and vice versa. There is a good amount of collaboration, ensuring we cover those gaps.

While it's not perfect, you may not be aware that it's the responsibility of municipalities and provincial governments to undertake that level of surveillance in restaurants. CFIA doesn't have the authority to be there. That's why working with all of our partners helps us develop the full story.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

We'll now go to Ms. Barron for six minutes or less, please.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you very much, Ms. Switucha.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you to those who have brought forward information today. I appreciate this information.

I'll get right to the questions, but thank you to the witnesses who have come here today. Some of the questions I asked were very similar to Madame Desbiens' question. I wanted to build off some of those.

We saw it highlighted in a 2020 study from Oceana and the UBC Fisheries Economic Research Unit that our poorly regulated supply chains are accounting for an estimated loss for Canadian fishers of about $379 million, and for $93.8 million in lost tax revenue. Why aren't we taking more action to ensure our fishers aren't being undercut by illegal, inferior products?

[Tammy Switucha]

I don't believe that question falls within CFIA's mandate. I don't know whether my colleague from Fisheries and Oceans has a response to that.

[Adam Burns]

If I understand the member's question correctly, it relates to products that are being imported into Canada that are incorrectly identified as a particular product. DFO's jurisdiction relates to the harvest of Canadian fish and seafood. We do not regulate the importation of seafood products into Canada.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you.

Currently, we are seeing the country of origin labelling standard requiring only that products be labelled with their last place of “transformation”, rather than their actual origin. I wanted to ask if that is correct.

If a consumer buys a seafood product labelled “product of the United States”, for example, we know that.... The example I was given was that if a fish is caught in China, then shipped to the United States and breaded in the United States, it's labelled as a product of the United States. I'm wondering if you can confirm that this information is correct and if you have any thoughts around how to best move forward with this information.

[Tammy Switucha]

You are correct. The Codex Alimentarius standard, which many countries follow—the EU, the United States and Canada included—with respect to country of origin and that declaration on a label, signifies where the food underwent the last substantial processing step.

Now, as part of this inquiry into the country of origin, it's important, and I'd like to share that at the CFIA we have undertaken significant consultations over the last five years to modernize our food labelling requirements. The country of origin was one area where we undertook quite a bit of study. We were prepared...and are still looking at making future regulatory changes in that area. The regulatory process has been somewhat delayed because of the COVID pandemic, but it is an area that we have received quite a bit of feedback on and will continue pursuing as part of our ongoing look to modernize our labels.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you very much. I apologize. I have so many questions I want to ask that I'm letting myself get too excited about questions, but I appreciate that information.

One thing that has come up is an area that I'm hearing there's a struggle around: how we label fish with a common name. The government has a mandate to lay out a better boat-to-plate process, but why are we letting multiple species get labelled as the same fish? For example, I'm learning that common names are often used to identify seafood products, and that they're too broad, making it difficult for consumers to understand what they're getting. “Sole” and “snapper”, for example, are common names that have huge subspecies that qualify under that name, which, as we can see, can cause issues in many different ways. Saying that seafood is “sole” when in fact it is another species cheats us all.

I'm wondering if you can speak to that a little further.

[Tammy Switucha]

You are correct. Keeping a list of common names is a tool that many countries around the world use to help food processors and production companies ensure that they label the product accurately. In many instances, a scientific name can carry various common names. It is a challenge to continuously keep that information up to date, but that's why our partnerships with academia and with non-government organizations have been so important as of late, to make sure we are providing the best information to industry to keep their labels accurate.

I'll remind the member that it is industry's responsibility—that it is companies' responsibility—to make sure the labels they put on their products are truthful and not misleading, and CFIA will take action if there is an issue in that regard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Barron. Your six minutes are up.

We'll go to Mr. Arnold for five minutes or less, please.