Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Fisheries and Oceans
Issue No. 24 - Evidence - February 1, 2018
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 1, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, to which was referred Bill S-238, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (importation of shark fins), met this day in public at 8:33 a.m. to give consideration to the bill; and in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. My name is Fabian Manning, a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador, and I am pleased to chair this morning’s meeting.
Before our witnesses, I would like to invite the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Christmas: Dan Christmas, Nova Scotia.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine, British Columbia.
Senator McInnis: Thomas McInnis, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Poirier: Rose-May Poirier from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Gold: Marc Gold, Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. We may have other senators joining us shortly.
The committee is continuing its study of Bill S-238, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act (importation of shark fins).
Today we welcome officials from two government departments, Environment and Climate Change Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I would ask to you introduce yourselves for the record, please.
Carolina Caceres, Manager, CITES, Environment and Climate Change Canada: I’m Carolina Caceres, Manager, CITES, from Environment and Climate Change Canada.
Sheldon Jordan, Director General, Wildlife Enforcement Directorate, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Good morning. I’m Sheldon Jordan, Director General of the Wildlife Enforcement Directorate.
[Translation]
Nadia Bouffard, Director General, External Relations, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Good morning, Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. My name is Nadia Bouffard, from Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard.
[English]
Brian Lester, Assistant Director, Integrated Resource Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Good morning. I’m Brian Lester, Assistant Director, Integrated Resource Management, Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
The Chair: On behalf of the members of our committee, I thank you for being here today.
Honourable senators may recall that when government officials were before the committee in December, we indicated that we might invite them back after we heard from other witnesses.
We’re going to go straight to questions this morning. We’re going to begin with our deputy chair.
Senator Gold: Good morning and thank you for your presence today. The question is a fairly obvious one. Last time, when representatives were here, we were told you were still assessing the bill and its potential impact on the various relationships we have and instruments to which Canada is a party.
I wonder if you could give us an update on your thinking. Are you in a position to give us an opinion on the bill, its potential impact, and views on what any consequences might be, intended or unintended?
Ms. Bouffard: Perhaps I can start and maybe my colleagues can chip in.
Thank you for having us here again to hopefully provide you with additional information to help your deliberations.
From a Fisheries and Oceans standpoint, the first and foremost objective is to try and address the issue where it actually occurs, which is on the water. We’ve all seen the videos that are quite convincing in terms of the issue at hand, and we share the concerns of the committee in addressing unsustainable practices on the waters, and the impacts that can have.
The department responded to questions raised at the committee that we could not answer the last time around.
In our responses, which I believe the committee now has, there’s a document from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization that references not just Canada’s but the world’s responses to the management of shark fishing, including management measures associated to shark finning.
You will notice from this report, although it’s dated 2012, that it references the fact that Canada has had measures in place since 1994 to address the finning practices at sea. We were, I think, probably one of the first countries to put those kinds of measures in place because of the concerns, demonstrating that we share your concerns and your objectives with this bill.
The bill proposes we institute specific management prohibitions at sea for shark finning, and proposes trade measures associated to fins and fins attached to the carcasses.
We have witnessed that trade measures can be effective in addressing these kinds of unsustainable practices if they’re done consistently, particularly with our international obligations under trade agreements. Any measure, in order to be successful and not challenged, should be consistent with our trade obligations and done in a concerted way with other countries.
I took note of the witnesses’ testimony from yesterday, speaking of some of the measures taken by cities in Canada, Toronto in particular, and a note that when one city does something and another city doesn’t, we’re just exporting the problem and issue to another city.
The same thing happens internationally. I’m not saying that Canada shouldn’t do something, but it would be much more effective in addressing the issue if Canada did it with other countries around the world.
Having said that, we do support the objectives of the bill and we do share the concerns of the committee. We have not finished our assessment of the bill. There are some specific considerations, particularly in terms of mitigating the potential risks associated with our trade obligations.
Senator Gold: Thank you. This is a two-part question.
First, can you give us some indication of when your assessment might be completed so that we can fold that into our deliberations and schedule?
Second, can you elaborate on the specific trade relations that are giving you pause or some concern in relation to this bill?
Ms. Bouffard: I’ll start with the latter part of the question, if I may.
The main issue, from a trade perspective, is to ensure that shark fins of foreign origin have the same competitive opportunities as domestically harvested shark fins in the Canadian market. That stems from our international trade obligations associated with treating foreign imports in a comparable way to how we treat domestic trade.
This doesn’t mean that we can’t regulate that kind of import, but any import restriction should be comparable to the market access restrictions on domestically harvested shark fins imposed by Canada’s regulatory regime. So it’s a comparative system that we need to put in place and we can’t discriminate.
Senator Gold: I appreciate that. If you’ll allow me to probe, our understanding is that shark finning is banned in Canada. Furthermore, it’s really uneconomical from an industry point of view to fill up a ship with the whole whale only to arrive in port and sell the fin for what one can get for it.
So I would like to think that the legal market for Canadian shark fins would be very small and modest, and that the great majority — and it’s a large number that are imported — are, in fact, coming from foreign sources, many of which are poorly regulated, dare I say. Certainly, the evidence — although difficult to identify — from the studies that have been done identifies the sources as coming from many species that are under threat.
Would I be wrong in assuming that were this bill to pass, it would actually be quite easy to make the case that we’re not discriminating against foreign imports of shark fins, given that the market for legal Canadian shark fins would be negligible?
Ms. Bouffard: I’ll address this in two parts, if I can.
When we were here at the committee last time around, we did speak to the fact that we don’t currently have data with respect to domestic trade. We monitor and control what happens at sea all the way to the port; we have that information. We require, in most of our fisheries, that fins be attached to the carcass. Once it’s landed, typically what will happen, based on market demands, is harvesters will sell certain parts of the shark products to different markets, depending on what their demands are. So there is a market for meat and there is a market, as you will know, for fins.
We have demonstrated and spoken to the fact that we don’t have exports of shark fins from Canada going elsewhere. Those are the facts that we know.
The proposed measure in the bill suggests that the trade — the import from foreign sources — would require fins to be attached to the carcass. The entire fish would have to come to the market in order to be sold in Canada.
A comparable measure in Canadian context would require a Canadian fish to be sold and traded in Canada with the fins attached to the fish. So it’s not just a question of where our Canadian products go elsewhere, it’s about the trade within Canada.
Because we support the objective of the bill, we’re still looking at ways this could be mitigated. We haven’t landed on our views and perspective on this.
I would point to the fact that if we move in such a direction that trade risks are high, it might create a setback, if we’re successfully challenged in our approach, by legitimatizing a practice we’re trying to address through this bill. We want to make sure that our assessment thoroughly looks at those risks and means and measures to mitigate those risks.
Senator Gold: Can you give us some idea of when you might finish that assessment?
Ms. Bouffard: Well, no, I can’t give you a specific time, but rest assured that we are actively looking at this.
We’re also looking at what other countries are doing. So I come back to the reports that we reference in our responses.
You will note from the FAO report, as well as the Humane Society International report from 2016, that some detailed measures are outlined with regard to what other countries are doing.
What I find interesting from those two reports — the references are in our response; there’s an FAO report that dates from 2012 and a Humane Society International report from 2016. You can see the progression of countries’ measures adopted from one to the other in terms of addressing shark finning at sea as well as trade-related measures.
None of them have imposed an outright ban on shark fin imports. Many have put in place trade restrictions associated with the sale and the trade within their country.
The other thing I would highlight is that the FAO periodically reviews the management of shark fishing, and in 2018 we are expecting a review of the 2012 report. This will give an update of countries’ measures associated with shark fishing.
So we weren’t able to bring that to you today, because we don’t have it — the FAO has not produced it yet — but I expect that that will be produced in time for its Committee on Fisheries meeting coming up in summer 2018.
Senator Gold: Thank you very much.
The Chair: This is a very interesting conversation. I usually just let the flow of the meeting go, but it concerns me, as chair, that we’re dealing with a piece of legislation and we have no time limit on when we may receive information back from departments to guide us in our deliberations. I understand the help and assistance you have given us, with the questions that we answered earlier, but I certainly understand where Senator Gold is coming from, and I’m sure that will be part of discussions as we go forward.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for being here. I have a couple of questions.
As far as you’re concerned, is there a worldwide trend moving to eliminate the fin trade, or is there resistance from certain countries or different parts of the world?
Ms. Bouffard: That’s a good question. The reports we’ve provided will demonstrate, at least from our perspective, that there is a trend in increasing the management measures to prevent the activity from happening at sea. So we can very clearly see some improvements from the 2012 report, as I just mentioned, to 2016.
We also see a desire by many citizens and societies trying to influence their governments to adopt more measures, but none have adopted outright trade bans associated to this.
There’s a bit of speculation on my part to try to figure out why they’re not doing that and whether there are competitive reasons for not doing it.
As part of the trade of shark fish products globally, there are legitimate fisheries out there, and legitimate fish products coming from shark fisheries. Shark meat is sold in many markets. There are imports into Canada from countries like Spain and the U.S. that have the necessary measures and procedures to monitor activities at sea.
I know Brian could give you examples of the discussions occurring internationally at the regional levels to address shark finning. There’s a growing momentum and will by countries to address the issue at sea, but I’m not seeing the momentum in terms of trade measures per se.
Mr. Lester: As a follow-up, in regional fisheries management organizations, there has been a move from rules that were eliminating or allowing finning at sea with a 5 per cent maximum fin ratio to the new measure of fins attached that was adopted at the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization in 2016. The 2017 meeting of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas also put that on the table. Unfortunately it was not passed, but 40-some countries supported moving to a fins-attached measure.
We all agree the best way to avoid finning at sea is to make sure that it is landed with the fin attached, which is the way Canada has moved. At all of our fisheries, it will be mandatory fins-attached as of this March.
Senator Poirier: The anti-finning measures have been gradually introduced in several jurisdictions over the years, yet the practice continues in several parts of the world. In your opinion, why is finning still prevalent, despite global efforts to restrict the practice?
I’ve also read lately that China and Japan are opposed to the fin-attached policy. In your opinion, why would Japan and China oppose this policy?
Mr. Lester: I don’t think we have an answer as to why they oppose it. You’re correct: In international fora where we’ve been with them, they are the two countries that have stood up against the fins-attached measures when we’ve brought it to the table.
Senator Poirier: They don’t say why?
Mr. Lester: Typically, they do not say why. They just oppose it. Unfortunately, they were the two oppositions at the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. That was the reason the recommendation did not get passed. The ICCAT is a consensus organization.
Senator Poirier: This is my last question. Is there a likelihood that another country would challenge a Canadian ban on shark fin imports?
Ms. Bouffard: As I mentioned earlier, it depends on how that trade measure is framed. We are assessing, as I mentioned, what could be done to mitigate those risks.
I can’t give you a blanket “yes” or “no” response. It really depends, especially on whether the measure factors in and introduces something that’s comparable for domestic trade. It’s a very important point associated to that.
In terms of your previous question, I’m going to refer to that FAO report of 2012 regarding Japan and China. Japan is listed as one of the key shark-fishing nations for which information is available. The alphabet soup you see in the column RFMO are all the regional organizations for fisheries on the high seas. Shark fishing happens on the high seas, but it also happens in coastal zones of states.
In terms of the high seas part of it, many of these organizations have adopted shark-finning management measures, such as what Brian just referred to, and Japan is a party to those. So to the extent that those organizations, like NAFO listed here, have adopted shark-finning measures, Japan is bound to respect those when they fish on the high seas.
Senator Poirier: Thank you.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you for being here. I’m listening carefully to the questions and responses from you and other witnesses we’ve had.
If the bill were to say that we ban the import of all shark fins from countries that do not have a mandatory fin-attached-to-the-carcass policy, would that be acceptable and wanted?
Ms. Bouffard: First of all —
Senator Ringuette: It would remove the trade issues, there’s an issue of reciprocity, and it would flag that this is where Canada wants to go.
Ms. Bouffard: As a caveat from the start, I’m not a trade law specialist. I can’t be giving legal advice to the committee. Having said that, part of that would address some of the issues I just mentioned.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much. It’s very important that you’re here today.
Could you give us an understanding of the size of the Canadian shark fishery selling in the Canadian market? If we ban this, there will be an unintended consequence or consequences on those operations. You said that to have equal regulations with regard to trade and Canadian-caught sustainable sharks, they need to be the same.
How many people are fishing for shark, how much do they catch and how is it traded? Do you know all the products that come from sharks? Meat — we know about the fins for soup. What about shark cartilage that you can buy for your worn-out knees? What else comes from shark that is valuable to trade in our internal market?
Mr. Lester: I’ll take a stab at the first part of the question.
There is no Canadian-directed fishery for sharks. It’s strictly a bycatch. In recent years, catches are in the range of 80 to 100 tonnes, of which most of the market in Canada is meat. There is a very limited fin market. This is what I understand from my clients, the fishermen themselves. It is mainly a meat market.
Cartilage, oils and other products could be derived from it. We always encourage maximum utilization of the sharks. Even with sharks that are landed, we would encourage them to find a market for fins in Canada in a “legally caught” fishery.
Oils, skins and many products can come from sharks. My understanding currently is that the main market for the Canadian product is for meat.
Senator Raine: And that’s sold in Canada?
Mr. Lester: I think the majority is sold in Canada. I believe we have some exports of meat. I don’t have the numbers in front of me.
Exports, meat by country — we’re not rated anywhere in the top numbers. Again, we have a very small harvest of 80 to 100 tonnes. I don’t have the domestic exports. I think most of it is staying within the country. My understanding is that there’s not a significant market for fins from the Canadian harvest.
Senator Raine: These are sharks that happen to be swimming where they are fishing, they get caught up in the nets and they can’t be released. It’s not a catch-and-release. They’re dead when they arrive on a fishing boat, and we’re trying to utilize the practice.
Mr. Lester: The practice in Canada now is the retention of dead sharks. The harvesters have been doing it voluntarily more recently, but it was a requirement last year with porbeagle sharks and it will come into place for shortfin mako sharks. All sharks that are alive when they reach the border are to be released in a manner that causes the least amount of harm.
We are keeping sharks that are dead, and what’s really brought down our harvest over the years is strictly retaining dead sharks.
Senator Raine: The ones that aren’t dead are released.
Mr. Lester: Yes.
Senator Raine: Eighty to 100 tonnes sounds like an awful lot to me.
I guess it is important that the fishermen who land these dead sharks should be able to get some financial value from them because they have the cost of looking after them once they’re on their boat — storing them and all those other things.
What else could we do? That’s obviously the right thing to do, but there is a consequence when you’ve caught a shark. It’s unfortunately dead. You can’t let it go. You have to deal with it, and there’s a cost to that. Does the sale of the products of the shark more or less balance that cost or is it seen as a bycatch — I’m lucky I caught a shark in my bycatch — I can make money on?
Mr. Lester: I would suggest they would not keep sharks if they didn’t have a market for them. They would record them and release them dead, if that was the case, and these are the rules in place. As you indicated, if it’s a negative economic result — as long as they record them so we can keep track of it — we do have limits in place for the harvest in Canada. We’re nowhere near those limits in terms of our current bycatch. My understanding is there is a market for the meat that makes it valuable enough to bring in a dead shark.
Senator Raine: So the policy of retention of dead sharks is voluntary. They are allowed to dispose of dead sharks.
Mr. Lester: As long as they record it in their logbooks so we can keep track of the mortalities.
Ms. Bouffard: I would add that there is growing concern internationally with respect to the waste of seafood, so throwing overboard species that are dead when you bring them into the boat would be considered as food waste. And I sense there will be some growing momentum internationally in addressing this issue.
Senator Raine: What we’re really trying to do is prevent them from being sold for the cosmetic purpose of having them in this fancy, expensive soup.
Ms. Bouffard: Yes.
Mr. Lester: Correct.
Senator Raine: Thank you.
Senator McInnis: Thank you for coming. It’s against the law to throw a dead fish back into the water, isn’t it? I think that is in the Fisheries Act.
Mr. Lester: For some species it is. It would be a licence condition that you must retain all species. However, some species are allowed to be released as long as they are recorded within your logbooks.
Senator McInnis: I once had a case on this many years ago, but that’s what I recall.
I have no idea how many species of sharks there are, but I mentioned these figures the other evening when we had a meeting: In the northwest Atlantic, 89 per cent of the hammerhead sharks are allegedly gone, 80 per cent of the thresher sharks, 79 per cent of the great whites and 65 per cent of the tiger sharks. Does anybody know the cause of that? Is it someone catching sharks and exploiting? What is the reason for such a decline in these species?
Mr. Lester: I think Carolina may be able to speak to which species of those are listed under CITES and most of those are that you’ve just brought up. A few of those actually appear in Canadian waters, maybe great whites occasionally. I don’t think we would typically have hammerheads, the occasional one maybe, but Carolina can speak to those species that are listed under CITES on which she may have some background.
Senator McInnis: If they are listed under CITES, how many signatures, 180?
Ms. Caceres: One hundred and eighty-four.
Senator McInnis: If it’s listed there it may not be illegal but it would be against the obligations of the signatories, correct?
Ms. Caceres: I’m happy to try to answer that question. There are currently 10 listed shark species on CITES Appendix II, and I will get back to what that means in terms of the obligations for parties. Some of the ones you mentioned are there. The three hammerhead sharks, the great hammerhead, the smooth hammerhead and the scalloped hammerhead. There’s the whale shark, the basking shark and the porbeagle shark, which is in Canadian waters, and the oceanic white tip. These are mostly very large shark species. I think the first one listed was the basking shark.
The CITES parties, the 183 signatories to CITES, have been paying attention, with growing concern, about the status and conservation of sharks for quite a number of years. I believe the first time the CITES signatories brought attention to this matter was in 1997 with some resolutions that were adopted, recommending certain actions. The listing of sharks on CITES began a few conferences of the parties after, I believe starting in 2002, because of growing concern with both the conservation of sharks. And, of course, being that CITES is a trade convention, it’s also the element of trade or the threat that trade may pose to those species.
Listing on CITES Appendix II obligates parties to permit the trade. In other words, the transfer of specimens from these species, be it shark fin meat or any other product, requires CITES’ permits and in issuing a permit the party is obligated to be convinced by the management authority that the origin of that product was legal, and importantly, this scientific authority of a party must determine the trade of that specimen, that object, is non-detrimental.
What we mean by “non-detrimental” is sustainable; in other words, that the country’s scientific authority has assured itself the harvest and take of that particular species and specimen for trade is not posing a threat to its conservation in the wild.
We’ve discussed that a number of these species are high sea species, so that puts some question around country of origin. However, CITES requires that introduction from the sea, which is the terminology we use in CITES, so in other words the harvest of something from these high seas areas also come with a CITES permit. And we have some structures around that aiming at making sure those countries are satisfying themselves that imports are sustainable.
Listing is just one step that parties to the convention take to address some of their concerns with regard to sharks. In addition, there are some fairly robust resolutions. Resolutions are the way CITES parties set some of their CITES policies, which have, among other things, asked the scientific committees of CITES to maintain a close watch on shark species more broadly and trade issues in particular. What is happening at meetings of the scientific committee, which is every year or every other year, depending on a COP, is that parties are asked to present information on their implementation of the NPOA on sharks, which I’m sure our colleagues can speak to, and in general provide thoughts and advice on shark species and the impact of trade on shark species. In turn, that scientific committee provides its advice to the conference of the parties.
A listing is a very important part of CITES, but there are also a number of other tools that CITES uses to try to ensure that the ultimate goal of CITES, which is to ensure that trade is sustainable and non-threatening to species, is achieved. And maybe the final thing I will say about that is, in addition to the resolution specifically on sharks, CITES adopted quite a number of tools to allow countries, collectively the parties, to evaluate and discuss the ability of parties to make those non-detriment findings. CITES parties, I would venture to say, are very rigorous in that particular obligation. It’s a key obligation for CITES. We have developed tools so if we have concerns with a signatory’s ability to make those important assessments, we have a number of mechanisms in place to evaluate their processes and suggest corrective measures if needed.
Senator McInnis: What authority do you have?
Ms. Caceres: We make decisions through the conference of the parties and the conference of the parties has granted the CITES parties and the standing committee, for example, the authority to do these evaluations, so to request information. Indeed, it is also granted the authority to the standing committee, the bureaucratic committee, to impose what we call trade recommendations.
If there is a concern with the trade of a party, the standing committee often makes a recommendation to not accept the permits. In other words, not accept the imports from a particular country. Of course, there is no legal authority per se. But the CITES parties do take that very seriously, and it is enacted. In essence, CITES has given itself some tools to put some punitive measures, as well as supporting measures, in place.
Senator McInnis: How big an organization is CITES? What size is the bureaucracy there?
Ms. Caceres: CITES is a now convention of 184 parties, I believe. That’s signatory countries. The organization works through the decision-making body, which is the conference of the parties. The conference of the parties has established a senior bureaucratic implementation committee, which looks at compliance, management and implementation. That’s called the CITES standing committee. The standing committee is made up of representatives from each of the CITES regions, and Canada is currently the representative from North America on that committee. Indeed, we’re chairing that committee. In addition, CITES has established two scientific committees whose job is to provide advice to the conference of the parties on fauna, animal-related issues and flora. Those committees are also made up of regional representatives. However, the selection of those individuals is based on expertise rather than party.
Then, there is a CITES secretariat located in Geneva, Switzerland. I’d like to say it’s about 100 people, but I wouldn’t know the exact size. It is not a large secretariat. It’s run by the Secretary-General, John Scanlon, and it has a number of organizational chiefs who look at various aspects of the convention, including providing support to parties in their implementation.
Senator McInnis: Further to the question that my colleague Senator Poirier put, are Japan and China signatories?
Ms. Caceres: Yes, Japan and China are signatories to CITES. They have participated in the debates that have led to the listing of the current 10 species, for example, and also participate in the animals and plants standing committees of CITES.
Senator McInnis: Thank you.
Senator MacDonald: I want to get back to the trouble that DFO seems to have with assessing this bill. I don’t know how many of you were working for DFO in 2011. Were you all working for DFO in 2011? There was a private member’s bill introduced in 2011. It got to a vote and was narrowly defeated. I’m curious. Was that bill assessed? Because that’s 2011 to 2018; I would think seven years is long enough to assess a bill.
Ms. Bouffard: Yes, the bill was assessed, and the position was stated by the government of the day.
Senator MacDonald: What’s different from the assessment then and the assessment now, since the bill is almost identical?
Ms. Bouffard: As I said from the beginning, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Government of Canada support the intentions of both bills, and both bills were trying to tackle the same issue from different avenues. Every time a different avenue is taken in terms of the proposed legislative amendments, we need to assess it in light of many factors, including our trade obligations.
Senator MacDonald: I’m not sure what a different avenue is. The bills are almost identical. So what are the different avenues?
Ms. Bouffard: They were proposing to amend a different piece of legislation at the time, if I recall. So the different avenues —
Senator MacDonald: They appeared exactly the same.
Ms. Bouffard: As bureaucrats, we will consult with various departments, not just a DFO position. We’ll consult with our trade law experts, our legal experts, and, from a policy perspective, we’ll consider and discuss with our colleagues from Environment Canada in terms of CITES implications and assess not just the objective but the tools that are being proposed through the legislation. The tools have been different under these pieces of legislation, so the considerations are different.
Senator MacDonald: Seven years and between 600 and 700 million sharks gone. If we are to wait for DFO’s assessment, we won’t have any sharks left.
The government is coming out with regulations that become effective in March 2018 that will require fins in Canada to be landed and actually attached. So that’s in two months time, and this is exactly what is proposed in Bill S-238. It will be a level playing field for domestic products and imported products. I’m curious what the challenge is in making that assessment when this regulation is coming in in March.
Ms. Bouffard: The bill proposes, as you correctly stated, two aspects, the finning at sea and the trade. In terms of the finning at sea, we have stated we support the objective of the bill to prohibit finning at sea through the measures we currently have in place and we’re trying to expand to all fisheries. We support that notion of prohibiting finning at sea through requiring fins are attached to the carcasses of sharks that are retained by Canadian fishing vessels bringing them in port and requiring that they be landed attached. We support that concept. Not only do we support it but we advance it internationally in the Regional Fisheries Management Organizations, trying to influence not just Canadians, but foreigners to take the same type of measures internationally for the high seas. As well, when we meet bilaterally with these countries, we raise these issues and try to influence their decisions.
I just want to make it clear we wholeheartedly share the concern, and we’re trying to advance measures at the source of the problem, which is at sea.
In terms of the trade measures, depending on what is proposed, we need to assess them in light of Canada’s obligations under international trade commitments. That includes the points I raised earlier, making sure we treat foreign imports of shark products in the same way we treat Canadian trade of shark products. That’s a critical part of our trade commitments under trade obligations.
Senator MacDonald: I think I’ve asked enough questions.
The Chair: Thank you. Again, we welcome the support of the intention of the bill, but it begs the question of where we go from here. We were hoping to do clause by clause on this bill in very short order, but I guess we’ll have to circle the wagons and see what we do on that. But we can still report the bill as it is. I understand that. We’ll see what happens.
Senator Raine: I actually wanted to follow up Senator MacDonald’s line of questioning. I fail to see what is different between what is currently in practice in Canada, i.e., shark fins must be attached to trade in Canada. If we put that in place for all other countries, doesn’t that eliminate any trade disputes? It’s the same regulation for both, whether it’s a foreign importation or coming from a Canadian fisher. What’s the problem with the trade, or trade laws, or trade conventions?
Ms. Bouffard: As I said, I’m not a trade law expert, but, the way I understand it, it’s one thing to require sharks be landed with shark fins attached. That’s one piece, but, once it’s landed, how is it traded in Canada? Because the bill before us and before this committee proposes any imports — it’s way beyond the landing site. It’s imports coming into Canada requiring the entire fish to be exported with the fin attached. That’s the way we’re reading the bill. To require that, without requiring the same thing from Canadians, is challenging.
We need to assess and see how we can mitigate those implications from a trade law perspective. We’re currently requiring that fish be landed in ports of Canada with fins attached, but there are no current requirements in Canada to have fins attached to the fish when they’re being traded.
Senator Raine: You mean when they go from the dock in Nova Scotia to the restaurant or to the shark cartilage —
Ms. Bouffard: Exactly.
Senator Raine: In other words, this bill could eliminate the use of the fish once it’s landed.
Ms. Bouffard: Potentially. But more importantly, we’d be requiring something different from foreign imports than from what we currently require for Canadians. That’s the challenge.
Senator Raine: If a foreign-caught fish lands in Canada and from then on all of the regulations internally are the same, whether the fish was caught in Canadian waters by Canadians or is being imported from some other source, it comes in whole and then it is traded the same way, then I can’t see any trade disputes.
If the use of shark fin products was prohibited in all aspects in Canada, whether it comes from Canadian-caught or foreign imported, then it is the same.
Ms. Bouffard: Like I said, there are different ways of addressing this issue. Every time we need to assess it — in light of the angle that’s being tackled, all with the same objective — under international trade obligations we need to make sure that what we impose on foreign imports into Canada is comparable to what we require on the trade front from Canadians. That’s the basic lens we need to look at for any proposal.
Senator Raine: DFO officials are not the experts on that. I guess we would need to hear from trade officials.
Ms. Bouffard: Yes, but I suspect they will give you the same response I’m giving you.
Senator Raine: But who is in charge? Whoever is signing the agreements?
Ms. Bouffard: Right.
Senator Raine: So someone has to go through all the agreements and adjust the agreements?
Ms. Bouffard: This basic comparable rule or nondiscriminatory rule exists in most trade commitments that Canada signed on to. It’s a basic principle of trade obligations.
I’m sure they can explain it more eloquently than I’m doing now, but that’s what it is.
The Chair: Senator, we need to move along.
Senator Gold: I do apologize because I’m about to treat you as an expert in trade law. I’m trying to look at the bill in context.
What if we were to say that you can neither import nor export a fin unless it’s attached to a whale so that the same rule would apply, and perhaps go even further to ban in Canada the use or consumption of whale fins unless they were certified to have arrived attached to a body or some such thing. I’m not trying to get too deep into the weeds. To create a regime that would include this ban on importation and match it with corresponding bans on Canadians exporting, and to make the rules equivalent for the use of fins in Canada, under our criminal law, health and safety, or whatever head of power your colleagues would recommend, would we not have gone a very long way towards satisfying concerns about discriminatory treatment of foreign fishery providers of shark fins?
Ms. Bouffard: Senator Gold, I think you’re asking the right questions and those are the kinds of assessments that would need to be looked at. I’m really not a trade law expert. I’m giving you the general principles that I have been taught by the trade law experts, and those are the kinds of questions we need to look at when you’re considering the risks associated to legislation under our trade obligations. What are we imposing on Canadians? Is it comparable to what we would seek from imports from foreigners, and not just in terms of how you fish and catch it, but also how you trade it?
Senator Gold: Understood, and if it is the case that we can’t expect an answer within a few short days, much less weeks, could we take it that if we were to independently determine a suitably adjusted bill did not discriminate in any respect against foreign sharks — that we would have at least responded to the principled objection that your colleagues might have in analyzing the bill as it stands?
Ms. Bouffard: I think that’s fair.
Senator Ringuette: I have a short technical question so I truly understand the process. When a Canadian fisher lands a shark, I think you mentioned a log, but is there some kind of registration? Is there a databank? I need to understand that bit there.
Mr. Lester: Sure, I will try to explain it with a bit more detail. When a harvester goes out, they have licence conditions they must follow. Part of the licence condition is recording all catch, retained or not. And as Senator McInnis noted, some species are mandatory to retain. In terms of sharks, there is a possibility to release a shark, even if it’s dead, if you record it.
The ones retained come to port and we have dockside monitoring. We have a third party, independent company that monitors all offloads. Previously, the rule was 5 per cent of the weight of fins compared to carcasses was what they were looking at. They were matching up the number of carcasses and number of fins. That was only for one last fleet that will be moving over to mandatory fins attached. Now when it arrives at the port, the carcasses will have to have the fins still attached and this third party that watches the offloads and weighs the offloads provides that information to the department.
So it is monitored at the dockside. All landings of sharks are 100 per cent dockside monitored by a third party. When it comes to the wharf, our guarantee is what used to be the 5 per cent rule will now be fins attached. After that, the products can go to different markets, so we need to differentiate that we’re not sending whole sharks all to the same markets. Fins can go one place, the skins can go somewhere else, and the cartilage can go somewhere else. That is what happens after it reaches the wharf, but what we’re guaranteeing is to the wharf, fins are not being removed.
Senator Ringuette: My specific question is in regard to the third party involvement in this scenario. Now with the fin attached to the carcass, there will be a kind of certification, am I correct?
Mr. Lester: It always has been, but the previous rule was the weigh out — fins could not weigh more than 5 per cent of the overall shark that you had on board. They would weigh them out separately and get to the point where they were counting the number of fins versus the number of carcasses to make sure they matched up.
Senator Ringuette: Chair, I have one more question that I think is very important. The Canadian process of certification when landing: Are we correct in assuming that with a country that has the same landing policy, the process also includes a certificate?
Mr. Lester: I didn’t finish answering, so yes, there is a database where all the information from the third party comes to the department. I can’t say every country the world that has fins attached has 100 per cent dockside monitoring because I don’t know that answer.
You would have to investigate how their legislation is written and how they’re actually applying that legislation. Based on my discussions at the ICCAT, I suspect some parties are using a risk-based approach where they may only be checking 50 per cent of the time. But harvesters won’t know which 50 per cent that is. I don’t think everybody has 100 per cent because it’s costly. Our harvesters pay it because we think it’s important.
Mr. Jordan: As we said the last time we appeared before this committee, if something is taken illegally or transported illegally in another jurisdiction, then it is already against the law under the WAPPRIITA to bring it into Canada and import it.
Ms. Bouffard: In reference to that FAO report I mentioned, which really summarizes what countries have in place, they note two key issues associated to shark fishing and shark finning. The first is that many countries are not reporting their catches, so they don’t have what is called the certification or the logbook. Also, many countries are not properly monitoring IUU fishing, which is an acronym for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.
It is an issue worldwide. Is it an issue for those countries that have adopted measures to deal with shark finning? We don’t know. The data and the information the FAO has published doesn’t get into that level of detail to tell us what that is.
Senator Raine: However —
The Chair: I’m sorry, but we’re up to our time now. I hate to cut you off, Senator Raine. We have to suspend our meeting to reconvene in a few minutes when we clear the room in order to discuss some future business.
(The committee continued in camera.)