The seafood is cheaper.
Evidence of meeting #93 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was illegal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #93 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was illegal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Director, The Outlaw Ocean Project
Yes, for consumers.... Why are all industries, such as textiles, etc., in China? It's because it's cheaper.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
We know there are many international agreements aimed at preventing IUU. Is there any international body that actually performs the enforcement of international laws and regulations in international waters?
12:20 p.m.
Director, The Outlaw Ocean Project
It depends on the species and the location, to be honest. There are RFMOs in specific places that pertain to tuna, for example. Squid has very few. There is one RFMO in South America that pertains to squid, but it doesn't encompass the region you're discussing. For the most part, the answer is no.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
What would it take for international waters to be secured and protected from the Chinese illegal, unreported and unregulated illegal fishing?
12:20 p.m.
Director, The Outlaw Ocean Project
It would take a bunch of things. It would take western brands in Canada, the U.S. and Europe to apply pressure on their own companies and foreign companies that are tied.... It would take governments to set aside MPAs on high seas and have mechanisms to do that, such as the High Seas Treaty on biodiversity. It would take enforcement collaboration among many countries to arrest ships when they come in if they have documented abuses.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you. I need to move on now to Mr. Knight.
Mr. Knight, are you aware of any instances in which C and P officers were told or advised to observe and not enforce?
12:20 p.m.
Fisheries Management Consultant, As an Individual
Yes, I am. I have to go back over my lengthy career in conservation and protection to say yes to that. There are times when the situation is just so volatile that the action directed and given to officers is that at this point in time they observe and record, and we'll decide what we're going to do with that information later.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
In those cases, is it because of the potential danger or risk to the enforcement officers, or are there other reasons?
12:20 p.m.
Fisheries Management Consultant, As an Individual
I think it's a combination. Sometimes it's a risk to the officers; sometimes it's the volatility of the situation and the potential for widespread civil disobedience. It does occur. In some cases enforcement action is taken later, and arrests are made.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Arnold.
We'll finish up our first hour with Mr. Hanley, for five minutes or less, please.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you very much to all three of you.
Mr. Knight, I maybe will continue the questioning with you.
Since Canada acceded to the Agreement on Port State Measures, do you see that in itself as having enabled some positive activity in terms of improving co-operation, monitoring and tracking of illegal activity?
Can you talk about what the effect of that has or has not been?
12:25 p.m.
Fisheries Management Consultant, As an Individual
I was the Canadian expert who helped write the first draft of the port state measures agreement, and I was there through all of the negotiations on refining it.
It did take us quite a while to get the treaty ratified in Canada. Notwithstanding that, we had implemented most of the measures in the port state measures treaty through our other treaties, like NAFO and ICCAT and other RFMOs before that.
It didn't change very much of what we do in Canada when foreign ships land here, but it gives us the mechanism to address these things elsewhere in the world. If vessels happen to be fishing in proximity to Canada but outside of our 200-mile limit, then we can make the request that wherever the vessel lands to, it gets inspected according to the measures of the port state measures agreement.
Yes, I think it helps.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
You also referred in various presentations to the need for a more international, collaborative approach regarding transboundary issues.
I wonder if you could briefly describe your advocacy there.
12:25 p.m.
Fisheries Management Consultant, As an Individual
This is particularly true for highly migratory stocks. If that's tuna, for example, we have the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. I believe over 50 countries are party to that.
If we don't collaborate on the management of those stocks wherever those fish swim, then we're not going to effectively manage those stocks. It's the exact same situation that we see in the South China Sea, where mackerel, squid and skipjack tuna are migrating around that sea. If one country sweeps it all up when they're in their jurisdiction, then the stock will collapse.
In Canada, I think we're strong advocates for that. I think we've effectively used the RFMOs, like ICCAT, NAFO and others, to make sure that the rules are being followed, to the extent that we can from our position in the organization.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you very much.
Ms. Elmslie, thanks also for being here. It's good to see you before the committee again.
You mentioned a 46% mislabelling rate, and I believe that same statistic came up in our labelling study.
I wonder whether you could again clarify what's inside that 46%. Is it about content, origin or both? Can you unpack that a bit?
12:25 p.m.
Campaign Director, Oceana Canada
Sure. That is almost all of those things.
To clarify, it was 40% of the samples we tested, not 46% of all fish. When we tested, it was not what was labelled on the menu, or it was a fish that was not on a fish list...even if the waiter went back to the kitchen to find out the information and provided the wrong information.
We also looked at what was on the label when we were buying fresh fish from a supermarket, for instance, and whether it all matched up. That's what we found, that the labelling was not matching up.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT
Thank you.
Since my time is limited, I'll quickly shift to you, Mr. Urbina.
It seems, both from your presentation and your website—which I had a brief look at—that your entire focus is on China.
I wanted to clarify the relative contribution of seafood caught by Chinese vessels in terms of the total global harvest. Are there other significant players that compare to China, either in volume or in practice?
12:25 p.m.
Director, The Outlaw Ocean Project
Our focus is not entirely on China. Right before that last investigation, we looked at the Thai fleet; before that, it was the Taiwanese fleet, and before that was the South Korean fleet. We've just recently been turning to China.
To answer your question, I think the largest big players that are IUU-connected are the largest big players. In terms of the high-seas fleets, you'd be looking at Taiwan, South Korea and Thailand as the next biggest players to be thinking about in terms of imports to Canada.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Hanley. Your time is indeed up.
That concludes our first hour of testimony and witness appearance.
I want to say thank you to Mr. Urbina, Mr. Knight and of course Ms. Elmslie for being here again as well. Thank you for your time today and sharing your knowledge with the committee on this study that we're doing right now.
We will suspend for a couple of minutes while we switch out to the second panel.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
We're back.
I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the new witnesses. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. Please mute yourself when you are not speaking.
For 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. All comments should be addressed through the chair.
I would now like to welcome our witnesses for the second hour. Representing the Canadian Independent Fish Harvester’s Federation, we have Melanie Sonnenberg, president, and Mr. Ian MacPherson, board member. They are both in the room.
By video conference, representing the Maritime Fishermen's Union, we have Carl Allen, vice-president, New Brunswick.
We will start off, of course, with Ms. Sonnenberg and an opening statement of five minutes or less, please.
December 12th, 2023 / 12:30 p.m.
Melanie Sonnenberg President, Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation
Good afternoon.
Thank you to the committee for the opportunity to speak here today on illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries. This is a complex issue facing our industry.
The federation cannot stress enough the importance of protecting our resource from any illegal and unreported activity. Our coastal communities rely on the sustainability of Canada's resource and must be protected as outlined in the Fisheries Act. Canada needs to clearly define and include the different aspects of what illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries can pertain to.
The fishery is diverse and complex, taking in many aspects under the banner of IUU. There are examples of foreign ships fishing illegally offshore, with a multitude of issues surrounding that, as well as different types of non-compliance inshore. These are vastly different issues, yet the consequences are equally damaging.
From the federation's perspective, illegal fisheries are when we refer to Canadian commercial independent harvesters as it relates to fishing activities that violate national laws contained in the Fisheries Act and fisheries regulations. It can be more far-reaching with vessels from outside Canada illegally fishing and not reporting. As to the unreported fishing, this refers to fishing that has not been reported through any of the prescribed methods of a fishing plan or has been misreported to the relevant national authority or regional fisheries management organization. Finally, unregulated fishing refers to, in the context of our members, fishing outside regulated zones or out of season, which are inconsistent with efforts under international law to conserve our living marine resources.
It is important not to qualify as illegal or unreported landings of fish all fishing that is done under a fishing licence: If that fish has been caught in an authorized fishing zone, has been properly declared by a harvester to the authorities and has been sold by the fishermen who have received a payment in cash, that does not make it illegal. There's nothing that makes cash sales of fish illegal or unreported, as long as the harvester declares the revenue to CRA for tax purposes and to the governing authority. Whatever the reason for cash sales, this does not render it unauthorized and illegal under the Fisheries Act.
That said, one may need to look at the implication of reporting to the CRA to address the issue of cash sales that are not properly declared, as well as ensuring that it is being correctly reported as per the fishing plan requirements by all harvesters for all fisheries.
We collectively need to determine what the real issues are. Making more rules and regulations will not reduce IUU fishing. Simply speaking, more direct enforcement and deterrents, such as fines and loss of fishing time on the water will begin to address non-compliance. Presently, DFO does not have the capacity to fully enforce the current suite of regulations, and adding more rules and regulations will do nothing to address the problems we are discussing here today.
Across Canada, there are many ways that fishing is being monitored. In some regions, there are video cameras in some fisheries that capture all activity on the deck of a fishing vessel. There are paper logs that the harvester is using. Also, now we are turning to electronic logs, which we heard a bit about earlier. They are being introduced. As well, in some fisheries, there is dockside monitoring.
In most regions, as an example, commercial lobster fishermen must declare all their catches, their hauling coordinates, their bycatches, etc., in almost real time using DFO-qualified electronic logbooks or by the submission of a paper log within a 48-hour time frame. In addition to electronic declarations, landing activities at the wharf and buyers' purchase slips are being closely monitored by conservation and protection agents throughout the year. In some fisheries, on-board observers are required.
Once again, the need for more DFO enforcement is paramount to deterring IUU fishing. Harvester organizations should be consulted in the development of a suite of deterrents, and DFO requires the appropriate resources.
The federation wishes to note the IUU under the guise of food, social and ceremonial fishing. This hurts our indigenous communities who exercise that right, as well as non-indigenous communities. Consistent enforcement for all harvesters is key. If these fisheries are not fully monitored and protected, the impacts will be far-reaching in the protection of our common resource for all parties.
Generally speaking, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing is a major concern to the inshore independent owner-operator. The long-term sustainability of our resource is threatened when such illegal and unreported activities are taking place without robust oversight.
I want to, again, thank the committee, and we look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you.
We'll now go to Mr. Allen for five minutes or less, please.