Fisheries Committee on Feb. 10th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Hardie, your time is up.

We'll now go to Madame Desbiens, for two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

It's very interesting. Again, I thank the witnesses very much for being with us.

I'd like to come back to the last consultation between Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Agriculture and Agri‑Food Canada, where the European Union and the United States were seen to have better ways of assessing the safety and traceability of food and seafood.

How is Canada not catching up with the requirements of other countries, according to this consultation?

[Tammy Switucha]

I can speak from the food safety perspective. The United States, the EU and Canada all have very similar food safety traceability requirements. I understand that their work related to fish and seafood traceability specifically, and their programs for those, was done with the objective of sustainability and conservation under those mandates.

From CFIA's perspective, we are very much on par with the EU and the United States in ensuring that for food safety purposes, food can be traced back to its origins if there's a foodborne illness, or if there's a fraud investigation. As is done by the EU and the U.S., we all follow international standards with respect to document maintenance and traceability for the purposes of food safety investigations.

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

Thank you.

Earlier, you said that your work reverberated, to some extent, down to the provinces and municipalities. I have difficulty seeing how a small municipality like Isle‑aux‑Coudres, for instance, can control the arrival or cod from Russia in one of its restaurants.

Where does all this start and where does it all end? In Quebec, for example, does it go through the Quebec ministry of agriculture, fisheries and agri‑food?

[Tammy Switucha]

We really work closely with all of our provincial and territorial colleagues, especially MAPAQ. The CFIA works closely with MAPAQ, which follows up within the province of Quebec to verify local establishments and works with the municipalities. Food safety has a multiple jurisdiction responsibility, and we work very closely with all levels to ensure that consumers are protected from end to end in the supply chain.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Madame Desbiens.

We'll now go to Ms. Barron for two and a half minutes.

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

Following up on my previous question, I have another question about the industry. I believe this should be directed to Ms. Switucha, but correct me if I'm wrong.

Many in the industry want to build increased accountability and a responsible supply chain. There are environmental, economic and health reasons for doing so, which we are all aware of. Most don't want to sell a bad product, but unfortunately there's no way for them to know. I'm wondering, beyond consultation, how we're bringing together partners to collaborate and find solutions around this issue.

[Tammy Switucha]

I can certainly speak to your question from the food safety perspective.

We collaborate and engage with the food industry on a regular basis, even when we're not in consultation, whether it's on a policy or on regulations. We use industry input and feedback all the time. I'm not sure I can answer your question from the perspective of sustainability and environmental reasons, but from a health and safety perspective, the industry is very committed to ensuring it sells safe product. The high compliance rates in Canada can point to that, but we—

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

I appreciate that information. Thank you. I'm sorry, but I just want to make sure I get my other question in.

You also mentioned that companies can voluntarily add information to the label, such as the scientific name, the location of the catch or the type of fishing gear used. You also said all this information must be truthful and not misleading. We know that global supply chains are incredibly opaque and complicated.

Would most importers even have access to this information? Even if they wanted to label the product with more details, wouldn't they just be opening themselves up to increased liability by doing so?

[Tammy Switucha]

One of the requirements in the regulations is that every food processor or manufacturer have a preventative control plan. That plan also includes all the information related to how they're labelling their product. It is their responsibility under the law to make sure they can demonstrate that they are labelling their products truthfully and not in a misleading way.

Importers, under the new law, which is a new tool kit that's been given, are under very specific requirements with regard to what they must have to enable compliance. It ultimately rests on them to ensure that for whatever they're importing, they work with their supplier to make sure that information is accurately displayed on the label and the food is safe to eat in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Barron.

We'll now go to Mr. Small for five minutes or less.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

My question is for Mr. Burns with regard to DFO's catch certification program.

I refer to your remarks regarding concern that fish be caught in an environmentally sustainable manner. Determining the degree of environmental sustainability of certain seafood must be quite the process. You rely on science, stakeholder input and input by ENGOs to formulate what sustainability means.

Mr. Burns, can you tell me what percentage of the input into an environmental sustainability label comes from ENGOs?

[Adam Burns]

With respect to the comment I made in my opening remarks around environmental sustainability, I was speaking about the foreign countries that have imposed these certification requirements. The requirements speak specifically to the flag states certifying that products are regulated. These certifications do not delve deeper into an individual flag state's regulation of the fishery to make a determination as to whether that regulation achieves sustainability. That was the origin of the comments I made.

For Canada as the flag state in the case of, for example, EU certification, there is no requirement beyond certifying that a product has come from a regulated fishery. All Canadian fisheries are regulated.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I'll tell you what led me to this. In Atlantic Canada, a lot of attention is being paid to right whale protection, which of course is very important. How much consideration is given to stakeholders like fish harvesters, for example, when breaking mechanisms are now required for fishing gear and haul up lines? Fishers say this will result in lines often breaking needlessly and fishing gear being unretrievable, resulting in ghost fishing gear.

Mr. Burns, how wise is it to force this breaking mechanism requirement on fishermen in terms of determining sustainability labelling if we're going to leave fishing gear on the bottom in areas where right whales aren't even prevalent?

[Adam Burns]

That is indeed within the area of my responsibility as well, so I can speak to that.

Currently, there is no requirement for breaking points in the lines for fixed gear in fisheries—crab and lobster primarily. Those requirements are not yet in place. The minister has indicated that whale-safe gear requirements will be in effect in licences issued as of January 1, 2023.

We're currently engaged in significant consultation with the fishing industry to explore the unique nature of the particulars of individual fisheries and which types of whale-safe gear contrivances would be most appropriate in those fisheries. We're engaged in trials of various types of gear configurations that may generate a greater degree of whale safety for the gear.

At this time those requirements are not yet in place. Indeed we are working directly with the fishing industry to try to find ways to avoid exactly those issues. That's why, when the department hosted a gear innovation summit in Halifax in 2020, just before the pandemic, it was focused on two things: whale-safe gear and ghost gear. We know we need to address both of those issues simultaneously. We're looking to avoid, to the maximum extent possible, unintended consequences from whale-safe gear requirements.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

In your opinion, on the east, northeast and Labrador coast in the Newfoundland region, where right whales are known to be very infrequent visitors, do you think being practical has a role to play in the sustainable aspect of labelling?

[Adam Burns]

I'm sorry. I'm not sure I follow the question in terms of the link to sustainable labelling.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I meant, how much onus do you put on practicality in terms of, firstly, where right whales are prevalent, and secondly, how much fishing gear could be left on the bottom and continue fishing because of this breaking technology?

It's very important and very timely. Fishers in my riding and in my province are very concerned about this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Burns, if you could you provide an answer in writing, it would be more appropriate. It's gone well over the time allotted for the questioning.

We'll go on now to Mr. Hanley for five minutes or less please.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I'm sorry. I got caught off guard. I thought I was coming in later on.

Mr. Burns, given that the boat-to-plate requirement was in three mandate letters in 2019 and this is clearly a work in progress, yet it is not in the 2021 mandate letters—that I can see anyway—I wanted you to talk about how much of a priority is being placed on carrying on with this work among your many other priorities.

[Adam Burns]

I can begin, although I will note that while DFO is actively engaged in this work, CFIA is leading on this, and certainly I can say that the work continues. We've just wrapped up consultation with stakeholders related to the boat-to-plate element. My colleagues from CFIA can probably speak better to next steps moving forward on that.

[Tammy Switucha]

Yes. While the boat-to-plate traceability item was not listed in the Minister of Health's latest mandate letter, it very much falls within CFIA's priority under the food policy and the funding we've received with respect to food fraud.

We continue to undertake our work to prevent and detect fraud in Canada, which includes fish and seafood but also focuses on many other foods that are subject to fraud and misrepresentation in Canada. As my colleague noted, we continue to analyze the feedback from the consultation and we'll be reporting on that in the spring.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

To go back to Mr. Burns, in your presentation you talked about the voluntary and market-driven industry participation in the catch certification program and said that “entire sectors of the Canadian fish and seafood industry have not participated in the program”.

I just wonder if you could elaborate and give me a bit of a deeper understanding of that and the significance of it.

[Adam Burns]

What I was referring to there is that the catch certification office is in place to respond to other countries' import requirements related to certification that seafood products are not IUU. Only those sectors of the fishery that export to countries that require such certificates participate in the program, although given that the EU and other significant markets now require it, I would say that essentially all of the marine wild-capture fishery is participating.

I certainly wouldn't want the committee to think that every harvester is engaged in this, but there would be significant exports from most of our significant fisheries that would be going to third countries that require this certification, so the participation rate would be very high. However, it's not a mandatory certification, in the sense that it is not currently part of any sort of Canadian traceability system.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I have another question for Ms. Switucha. I'm still grappling with what I think reflects Madame Desbiens' question around the gap between the upstream study and the downstream study, the difference there and the implications for the consumer.

I wonder if you can help me with the next steps to address that global picture of what really, when it comes to the consumer level, is that 50% or that 40%-and-something discrepancy, which is somewhat concerning.