Fisheries Committee on Dec. 12th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 93 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

This committee is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

Before we proceed, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

There is interpretation for those on Zoom. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French audio. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

Please address all comments through the chair.

Before we proceed, I simply want to remind members to be very careful when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on. Earpieces placed too close to a microphone are one of the most common causes of sound feedback, which is extremely harmful to our interpreters and causes serious injuries.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on January 18, 2022, the committee is resuming its study of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

Before we go to witnesses, I will say that we have until 1:30 for committee business today. That's a dead stop at 1:30. That gives us pretty well 55 minutes with each panel.

I would like to welcome our first panel of witnesses.

Online we have Mr. Morley Knight, who is a fisheries management consultant. Representing Oceana Canada, we have Kimberly Elmslie, campaign director. From the Outlaw Ocean Project, we have Mr. Ian Urbina, director.

We'll start off with five minutes each.

We'll start with Mr. Morley Knight for five minutes, please.

[Morley Knight, Fisheries Management Consultant, As an Individual]

Thank you, Chair.

Good day, committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before your committee again and to contribute to your study on illegal fishing.

For most of my time in DFO, I was working in the area of conservation and protection, or C and P. I started as a river guardian and worked at all levels in the organization, as a fishery officer, a supervisor and a manager, and then as director of C and P for the Newfoundland and Labrador region. As director, I was part of the national executive team for C and P and contributed to program development and management across the country. As director in St. John's, I was responsible for Canada's offshore monitoring and compliance program, protecting our 200-mile limit as well as the straddling stocks. While I was the director, we developed and implemented the vessel monitoring system and the leading forensic investigation capacity in the country. Later, as regional director general in Moncton and Halifax, I was responsible for C and P in the maritime provinces.

Illegal fishing is most often driven by the profit motive—to make money—and occurs in the commercial fishery in primarily two ways. The first is to cheat on quotas or enterprise allocations and land more fish than permitted by the licence. This is prevalent in such high-value fisheries as crab and halibut. The second common objective is to avoid taxation. This occurs in such high-value fisheries as lobster. While there is no quota to abide by, there is a significant incentive to not report all catch and to avoid being taxed on the income.

Illegal fishing is also done by people who are not licensed to fish. Sometimes they do that to sell fish, such as salmon, illegally, or it's for their own food. In some cases, people who don’t need the food just want to poach salmon, as an example. Perhaps they're just doing it for recreation.

There is also the issue of fishing by indigenous people, to which they feel they have a right. Commercial harvesters see their activities as illegal fishing. This is a very contentious issue in such fisheries as the elver fishery and the lobster fishery in recent years. It has been a problem in other fisheries in other parts of Canada at other times. These situations are very frustrating—for the conservation officers who are caught in the middle, for licensed harvesters and for the indigenous people who feel harassed by both enforcement staff and the commercial harvesters. The frustrations can be mitigated by clearly communicating the rules, having an orderly and regulated fishery, and then providing an adequate monitoring and compliance presence to effectively implement the rules.

While that sounds simple, it is not. While patience is required, action is also required before the situation explodes or stocks are harmed.

The C and P program of DFO has the strategies and capacity to implement a reasonably effective compliance program, but that's if they have a level playing field to start from. That level playing field includes the necessary support from the Coast Guard for them to deliver their offshore compliance programs, clear rules for the commercial fishery and the settlement of rights for indigenous groups. They have effective mechanisms to work with other agencies, such as the RCMP and other federal and provincial agencies. They have, and use, such technologies as satellite monitoring and VMS and forensic investigations. They have the use of the various technologies as much as or more than other agencies.

What needs to be done to address some of the concerns you've been hearing about? Here are five random ideas.

One is presence. The key element in any situation where there is non-compliance is having an effective monitoring presence, which in some cases requires bringing in the necessary staff from other parts of the region or elsewhere in Canada.

Two is leadership. The C and P program sometimes suffers from the lack of strong leaders. Leaders have to be brought in from other organizations, which in many cases doesn't work very well. Effective leadership development has to be a long-term strategy for the C and P program.

Three is to settle the indigenous rights issues. While there is a risk in that, and one side or the other will not like the outcome, the courts may have to be used to settle or clarify the rights of indigenous people who fish. Without that, anarchy will reign and there can be no effective compliance program. The risk is greater than what the courts may decide.

Four is to implement DMP in the lobster fishery. Lobster is the most lucrative fishery in Canada. Almost all quota fisheries have a dockside monitoring program, but lobster does not. Industry will resist, but an effective DMP would resolve most of the current problems in the lobster fishery.

Five is to implement catch certification for all commercial fisheries. More than a decade ago, DFO set up a catch certification office in P.E.I. to meet the EU requirements for government certification that any product going into the EU was legally caught and recorded. A logical next step would be to implement this process for all exports and subsequently require it for all product coming from a fish buyer or processor, regardless of whether it's being exported or not.

Thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Knight.

We will now go to Kimberly Elmslie, for five minutes or less, please.

[Kimberly Elmslie, Campaign Director, Oceana Canada]

Good morning. Thank you for inviting me to appear.

I'm the campaign director for Oceana Canada. At Oceana, we believe that by restoring Canada's oceans, we can strengthen our communities and reap greater economic and nutritional benefits.

When fish derived from illegal, unregulated and unreported sources enters the Canadian supply chain, it undermines our food safety, cheats consumers and the Canadian fishing industry, thwarts efforts to stop overfishing and contributes to human rights abuses.

In Canada, a lack of traceability in seafood supply chains is allowing fish from IUU sources to enter our marketplace. Without traceability, an endangered species of fish caught by forced labour on a vessel fishing illegally can make its way onto Canadian grocery store shelves with no way for consumers to know the truth about its origin.

To combat IUU, Oceana Canada recommends the following:

Implement a full-chain boat-to-plate traceability system for all seafood sold and caught in Canada.

Require an annual report to Parliament on the status of imported and domestic stocks.

From reported stocks, DFO should identify the origin of catches and verify the legality of all seafood being sold in Canada. For domestic stocks, DFO should report on performance and management decisions for all stocks.

Require labelling on all seafood products sold in Canada to include the scientific species name, the geographic origin and the type of fishing gear used.

Implement DFO's fishery monitoring policy to facilitate international reporting and to help the fishing industry meet import requirements in other countries and ensure that valuable export markets remain in place. The department must accelerate efforts to transition to electronic reporting that records all sources of catch, including bycatch and discards.

Urgently move to enact legislation with the direct purpose of eliminating forced labour in Canada's global supply chains, including the seafood sector.

Combat IUU at the global level by continuing to fund and expand the development of federal government technology programs and organizations, including DFO's dark vessel detection program and Global Fishing Watch.

When implemented, these recommendations will ensure that, ultimately, only legal, sustainable and equitable products are sold in Canada. They will also create safeguards, so that Canadians purchasing seafood are not unknowingly contributing to forced labour or other human rights abuses. Efforts to tackle IUU fishing will also redirect financial contributions back to the legitimate economy.

In a study that we commissioned, researchers estimated that Canada's commercial fisheries sector generates a landed value of approximately $354 million annually from unreported catches, resulting in an estimated tax revenue loss of almost $34 million a year. Furthermore, Canadians are spending up to $160 million a year on imported seafood derived from IUU fishing, including seafood potentially harvested using forced labour.

Since 2017, Oceana Canada has conducted DNA testing on seafood from grocery stores and restaurants across Canada. In the spring of 2021, we found that 46% of the seafood samples tested were mislabelled. Our testing of 472 samples taken between 2017 and 2019 found that a similar 47% of the samples were mislabelled.

Our analysis found several instances of escolar labelled as butterfish or tuna. Escolar is an oily fish that causes acute gastrointestinal symptoms and is banned for sale in several countries. We found Japanese amberjack sold as yellowtail. Amberjack contains a natural toxin that can cause long-term debilitating neurological symptoms. We also found several endangered species of fish being sold.

Canada's seafood supply chain remains opaque, with weak traceability standards. By implementing our recommendations, the government could keep IUU fish out of the Canadian market, protect our health, our oceans, our wallets and our seafood industry, and not contribute to global human rights abuses.

Canadians deserve to feel confident that their seafood is safe, honestly labelled and legally caught.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

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

[Ian Urbina, Director, The Outlaw Ocean Project]

Thank you.

My name is Ian Urbina. I'm the director of The Outlaw Ocean Project. We're a journalism organization based in Washington D.C.

I spent two decades at The New York Times, on the investigative unit. The last big investigation I conducted there looked at human rights and environmental crimes on the watery two-thirds of the planet.

After leaving the Times, I created my own shop, if you will. We're a team of 12. We're decentralized, and we do deep-dive investigative projects. We're always reporting at sea and on the fishing vessels, if fishing is the target.

The last four years were spent specifically looking at the Chinese distant-water fishing fleet, which are vessels in foreign waters or high seas. We focused on China in particular. It's of great relevance to Canada in particular, because China is the superpower of seafood by two metrics. One is the number and tonnage pull of vessels on the water around the world. China has more distant-water fishing vessels than the next largest fleet by a factor of 10.

The second reason it's the superpower of seafood is its processing capacity. Fish pulled out of Canadian waters by Canadian flag vessels, out of U.S. waters by U.S. flag vessels—or French, German or Spanish, etc.—are often landed in the home country and then frozen, shipped to China for processing, frozen again and shipped back.

China, for both of those reasons, is really the bottleneck of the global seafood supply chain, so the crimes, be they IUU fishing or human rights on land in processing plants, are of great concern to the rest of the world, including Canada.

What our investigation found was a global fleet that is China, and a processing infrastructure that is, especially, in Shandong province in China, that has myriad deep concerns.

On the fishing vessels themselves, we found widespread problems of IUU. These came in various categories. AIS darkness is when vessels go invisible or go “dark” by turning off their transponders for long periods of time—often weeks and months—which is a violation of Chinese law and other rules. We also see the ramming of other ships; Chinese vessels' incursions into foreign waters—Argentinian waters or West African waters, where they're not licensed—using gear they're not permitted to use; and human trafficking on the vessels. We see high-grading, which is the dumping of fish when they can catch more fish, and fishing in zones where they're not permitted. There is a wide variety of IUU-related crimes by this fleet. There are also severe human rights abuses on the vessels themselves.

On land, we also found things that cause very deep concern, and we continue to report that. There is widespread use of Xinjiang Uyghur labour—state-sponsored forced labour—in processing infrastructure. One of the largest companies that's bringing a lot of seafood into the west is a company based in Canada. It's one of many companies that we found to be importing seafood from processing plants that have widespread use of banned labour—either North Korean state-sponsored forced labour or Xinjiang Uyghur forced labour.

The bottom line is that there's a huge problem and it gets back to import controls, supply chain tracing and a willingness of companies, be they Canadian, American or any others, to reckon with whether they can actually keep track of the conditions on the vessels or in the processing plants. These are the core concerns that the industry and government players are going to have to confront.

I was just in Ottawa a week ago, meeting with folks in your foreign affairs office about some concerns about laws on the books for import controls and the ability under existing law for Canada to stop the import of certain seafood that's been tied to IUU or human rights, but there's a lack of political will and a lack of experience in using those laws. There's growing pressure, I think, partially because of this investigation and the work of others—Morley and Oceana included—to really draw attention to some of these concerns.

One final thing I would mention is that I think there needs to be a reckoning within the IUU and marine community with some of the issues that Oceana just raised and that our investigation has been raising for a while. This is the redefinition of illegal fishing. If we're going to talk about IUU and not actually take into account concerns about sea slavery and human rights concerns in the processing infrastructure, we're going to end up having to solve a problem twice.

If we have a bifurcated, siloed method of tackling IUU that doesn't include the human conditions, these same concerns within the seafood supply chain are going to come up again in a separate form, so I would encourage you folks to actually look at the definition of IUU and really think hard, as the U.S. is already doing, about incorporating new components in that definition.

I'll end it there. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

We'll now go to our first round of questioning.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for taking part in our very important study today.

Mr. Chair, my first question is for Mr. Knight.

I'm wondering if you could explain to the committee how dockside monitoring of lobster catches would resolve the current problems in the lobster fishery.

[Morley Knight]

I think the DMP is an essential link with the other tools in place in the fishery. For example, lobster harvesters are required to complete logbooks, and purchasers—whether they're buyers or processors—are required to complete purchase slips and report landings to provincial and/or federal officials. The opportunity to tie that all together comes with the dockside monitoring program, which ensures, through a third party verification system, that all landings are reported and cash sales aren't occurring without the proper documentation. It would allow all of the catch that's currently coming out of the water and not getting recorded or noted for scientific research purposes....

Like I said, I think third party DMP verification is the piece of [Technical difficulty—Editor] on a lot of the current concerns, including looking at lobsters that are coming out via sources and being shipped from province to province or out of the country without the proper documentation and receipts.

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

Thank you very much.

I have another question for Mr. Knight.

We've had reports of DFO patrol vessels being out of service this past year, particularly ones that patrol the 200-mile limit.

Should the Coast Guard provide better resources to C and P to make sure the nose and tail of the Grand Banks and our 200-mile limit in that area right there are fully patrolled at all times?

[Morley Knight]

Look, I'm not in DFO anymore, but I can tell you from past experience that unless there's a constant presence out there, with our patrol ships guarding our 200-mile limit and beyond, the ships there from all the other countries will be congregating on stocks they shouldn't be catching.

Yes, there needs to be greater accountability to keep ships operational. I think there needs to be a yearly accounting of the patrol days that are actually in the NAFO regulatory area and within our 200-mile limit. Without that, the situation will deteriorate.

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

Again, on that same topic, it's widely anticipated that the northern cod quota is going to be substantially increased in the coming year. As we know, NAFO countries other than Canada stand to get 5%.

Do you think the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should be preparing for the threat of IUU fishing due to the fact that these countries are going to be able to come inside our 200-mile limit and catch 5% of that TAC?

[Morley Knight]

I'll give you a slight clarification. They won't be allowed to come inside our 200-mile limit. They will have to catch their 5% in division 3L, outside, where the cod stock is.... It's a straddling stock. It straddles both inside and outside.

However, there is a real risk, as you pointed out, that, if it's not carefully controlled and monitored with regular inspections of vessels, the catches will be under-reported and the fishing efforts will far exceed what they should be by foreign vessels.

Therefore, it needs a constant presence and a regular inspection.

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

My next question is also for Mr. Knight.

We heard testimony about illegal elver fishing in Nova Scotia this past spring.

In your opinion, based on your experience, what does DFO need to do to be ready to stop this from happening again next year?

[Morley Knight]

This is a situation that's been getting worse as time has gone on over the past few years.

Before next spring occurs, if we're going to improve the situation, DFO needs a clear plan that is communicated to all parties. There need to be clear expectations of what is permitted and what is not permitted. They need an operational plan and resources lined up to execute their plan, bringing in staff from across the country, if needed.

Also, they have to make it clear that those who don't comply with the rules in place will be arrested, and equipment used in the commission of the offence will be seized, whether it's fishing gear, pickup trucks or what have you. They have to execute that plan. It won't take long before the situation will.... There will be a countdown, and there will be compliance if those actions are taken.

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

I have one quick question, Mr. Knight. If we don't have time to finish it off, you might be able to submit it in writing.

Many in southwestern Nova Scotia feel that out-of-season lobster fishing has been taking place under the watch of DFO.

What does DFO need to do to change that perception?

[Morley Knight]

In the interests of time, all I'll say is that you need to do the exact same thing I just described in the elver fishery. You need to have a clear plan. People need to understand the rules and DFO needs to execute the plan and arrest those who don't comply. It's as simple as that. After a very small number of arrests and seizures are made, compliance will occur.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Small.

We'll now go to Mr. Hardie for six minutes or less, please.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses here.

One thing we have to state off the top is that sometimes, in our funding system, politics get in the way of common sense. Over the years we've had cuts to the Coast Guard and votes against Coast Guard funding, most recently a couple of nights ago. It's not helpful. We understand why that happens and what drives it. Sometimes partisanship gets in the way of common sense, and it's not helpful. Let's put it that way.

I want to remind you that you're here as a witness in a parliamentary standing committee, so you have certain privileges to disclose things that would otherwise get you in trouble out in the wide world.

You mentioned that there's a Canadian company that's involved in importing fish from China, I think you said.

Can you name that company?

[Ian Urbina]

Sure. I've written extensively about it. It's High Liner Foods, and it's one of the main importers of large amounts of seafood into Canada.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Is this an error of omission or commission when it comes to the possibility of illegally caught fish coming into Canada through that company?

[Ian Urbina]

I can speak only of my suspicion that it's an unwitting error. I think the extent to which it's witting is that, when these companies and many others decide to go into China, they opt to play by the rules that exist there. Everyone knows what those rules are, and one of them is that there are fundamental prohibitions against core things that you would need to check your supply chain for.

For example, on the ability to do spot checks on processing plants, you don't show up unannounced to a Chinese processing plant. You need permission, and those folks must know in advance. If you can't do spot checks on a processing plant, you can't get an honest assessment of whether there is forced labour in that processing plant. When companies go into China, they know the rules of engagement, and they make a decision. That's witting; that's not unwitting.

Whether this company or many others knew that they have North Korean or Xinjiang forced labour in the plants, I somewhat doubt, but they didn't know for reasons that they did know, if you understand what I'm saying.

A similar point I would make is that when it comes to on-water crimes, the IUU crimes of the vessels at sea, there is also an industry-wide witting blind eye turned to the fact that spot checks are not done on vessels on the high seas, Chinese or otherwise. When you're getting your catch from vessels, even if you have a certain amount of supply chain traceability and you know roughly what vessels that specific catch is coming from, you don't know what's going on on the vessels. Also, you probably don't know what's going on in terms of where those vessels are fishing and what gear they are using.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I appreciate that background, but I have to get to some other questions.

Mr. Knight, I would not want to be in the shoes of an enforcement officer staring down a couple of dozen people who are doing illegal things alongside of a river or a waterfront somewhere.

I think you're going to say yes, but do you think that we should mobilize Canada's intelligence service to follow the money to get to the people who are enabling or, if you like, encouraging illegal fisheries because there's money in it for them? If we cut off the money, I think we would maybe cut off the problem. Do you agree?

[Morley Knight]

I would agree with your first point that you can't have an enforcement officer up against 15 or 20 poachers, but you have to bring in the force to assess that.

What I can tell you is that DFO has partnerships with the necessary agencies, including.... I won't tell tales out of school, shall I say, but that includes all of the federal agencies necessary to collect information. At the same time, you can't always get the required information if the mechanisms aren't in place. I've already mentioned traceability and having all of our catch accounted for through our traceability certification program, so I think the necessary tools have to be put in place.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I remember that years ago there was a bit of a stunt pulled off in New York Harbor by a fisheries minister. I can't remember which one.