Introduction

From a global perspective, Canada is a major exporter of fish, seafood and seal products. According to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, by value, Canada was the world’s fifth-largest exporter of fish and seafood in 2021, with a global market share of 4.2%. Fisheries and Oceans Canada reports that Canada exported more than 565,000 metric tonnes of fish, seafood and seal products in 2022, the equivalent of almost 67.0% of the country’s commercial sea and freshwater fisheries landings and aquaculture production. Historically, the United States (U.S.) and the European Union (EU) have been two of Canada’s largest export markets for these products. However, certain measures in those jurisdictions have led to concerns about Canadian fish, seafood and seal harvesters’ and processors’ access to the U.S. and EU markets.

In Canada, Indigenous peoples have a constitutionally protected right to harvest marine mammals, including seals, provided that the harvest complies with specified requirements. According to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, “sealing is an important part of the way of life and a much needed source of income for thousands of families” in remote coastal and northern communities in Canada. In this context, EU measures regarding the importation of seal products have had a disproportionately negative impact on Indigenous peoples in Canada.

On 17 October 2023, the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade (the Committee) adopted the following motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study of the weakening of the Quebec and Canadian fishing industry created by restrictive American and European seafood import policies; that the Committee hold at least two meetings on this study, and that the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.

During two meetings held on 21 and 23 May 2024, the Committee heard from 11 witnesses, comprising Government of Canada officials and representatives of four trade associations, two civil society organizations and one firm. The Committee also received a written response from Fisheries and Oceans Canada and a brief from the Fur Institute of Canada.^[1] Collectively, the witnesses, the written response and the brief focused not only on seafood products, but also on fish products and seal products. During the study, the Committee did not hear from, or receive any briefs from, any Indigenous witnesses; consequently, the report does not consider Indigenous perspectives. According to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, “witness selection [for Committee studies] may be carried out in a number of different ways. Generally, witnesses are proposed by individual committee members.” Political parties can also propose witnesses.

This report summarizes comments made by the Committee’s witnesses in their appearances, the written response and the brief. In particular, the first section contains observations about potential challenges relating to Canada’s lobster exports to the U.S. market, the second section presents views about U.S. and EU import bans concerning seal products and the use of seal products as bait, and the third section focuses on U.S. measures designed to protect North Atlantic right whales. The fourth section describes other import requirements with which Canadian fish and seafood harvesters and processors (hereafter, harvesters and processors) must comply. The fifth section outlines existing and desired federal trade-related actions in relation to Canada’s fishing sector. The final section provides the Committee’s thoughts and recommendations.

Lobsters

The Lobster Council of Canada pointed out that the United States’ Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act “requires that any imported lobster be the same minimum size in live format as it is for the U.S.” As well, asserting that “[t]here’s no question” that a U.S. rule that increases the minimum size of lobster that can be harvested in the United States could affect Canadian lobster harvesters,^[2] the Lobster Council of Canada speculated that lobsters that are smaller than this new minimum size could be either exported to markets in Asia or processed differently.

The Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen’s Association suggested that, if Canadian lobster harvesters were to increase the minimum size of lobsters that they harvest, the initial result would be reduced landings because lobsters that previously would have been harvested would be “thrown back” into the water. However, the Lobster Council of Canada predicted that the effect of this increase would vary across lobster fisheries: there would be little effect in Prince Edward Island and on New Brunswick’s eastern coast because the lobsters are smaller and most are processed, and the impact on Quebec’s lobster sector would be negligible because the minimum size of lobsters that can be harvested in the province exceeds that of the fisheries in other provinces.

Finally, regarding the importance of the U.S. market, the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen’s Association argued that “not taking any action” in response to the increase in the minimum size of lobsters harvested in the United States could limit the access that Canadian lobster harvesters have to that market, which is an outcome that they “cannot afford, as [the United States] represents a significant share of the marketplace.” The Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association said that its members provide processing plants in the United States with “significant amounts” of lobster, and maintained that “it is vitally important that the critical trade channels to the United States … be kept accessible.”

Seal Products

With a focus on the European Union, Fisheries and Oceans Canada officials explained that the European Union was once Canada’s largest destination for exports of seal products, with the value of such exports totalling $5.4 million in 2006. They stressed that the European Union’s Trade in Seal Products Regulation, which was introduced in 2009, effectively banned the importation of seal products and had a significant negative impact on Canada’s exports of these products. The officials explained that the European Union’s ban was implemented because of concerns “about the way the seals were being hunted.” In its brief, the Fur Institute of Canada noted that it and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami challenged the ban at the General Court of the European Union. As well, the brief indicated that the Government of Canada made a complaint about the ban to the World Trade Organization.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada officials mentioned that, in 2015, the European Union introduced two exceptions to the Trade in Seal Products Regulation to permit imports of certified seal products from Indigenous communities and imports of seal products where the importation is occasional and comprises goods for the exclusive personal use of travellers. According to the Fur Institute of Canada’s brief, despite these exceptions, “very few” seal products from Indigenous communities in Canada have been exported to the European Union since the regulation was introduced.

In its brief, the Fur Institute of Canada noted the European Union’s Seal Pups Directive and its Trade in Seal Products Regulation, as well as the United States’ Marine Mammal Protection Act, and asserted that such measures have “deeply impacted” Canada’s sealing sector, including “sealers, seal processors, and manufacturers of seal garments and accessories.”

In relation to the United States’ Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Pacific Balance Pinniped Society highlighted that, since 1972, the importation of marine mammal products—including seal products—into the United States has been banned. Maintaining that British Columbia has an “overabundance of pinnipeds,” it argued that “it makes no sense to have an act that was passed in 1972 protecting the pinnipeds.”[3] The Fur Institute of Canada’s brief noted “significant increases in seal populations” on Canada’s east and west coasts, adding that—since the Marine Mammal Protection Act was passed—there have been “enormous changes to both management of marine mammal harvesting … and marine mammal populations.”

The Pacific Balance Pinniped Society drew attention to the demand for Canadian seal products for use as bait in Alaska, California and Washington State. The Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen’s Association suggested that Canadian lobster harvesters are interested in increasing the use of such products for bait, adding that it recognizes the potential negative impacts on access to the U.S. market for lobsters.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada officials noted that the Canadian government does not regulate bait, but cautioned that the U.S. government has indicated that “harvesters who fished using seal as bait would not be in compliance with the [Marine Mammal Protection Act] and would further risk, more broadly, all exports of that species to the United States.”

Finally, the Pacific Balance Pinniped Society emphasized the negative impacts of the increases in pinniped numbers on fish populations on Canada’s west coast. In its brief, the Fur Institute of Canada observed that “numerous Species at Risk listings in the Atlantic [identify] predation by grey seals as an impediment” to rebuilding fish stocks.

North Atlantic Right Whales

With a focus on the United States’ Marine Mammal Protection Act and other requirements that must be met before products enter the U.S. market, the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen’s Association and the Lobster Council of Canada recognized the need for Canadian harvesters and processors to meet U.S. standards for marine mammal protection, including in relation to North Atlantic right whales. The Lobster Council of Canada contended that the protection of these whales is a “key market access challenge.”

Fisheries and Oceans Canada officials remarked that the United States’ Marine Mammal Protection Act requires countries that export fish and seafood products to the United States to have a regulatory program for protecting marine mammals that is “comparable, in terms of the efficacy of measures, to [that of] the United States.”^[4] Moreover, they stated that the Canadian government has received no indication that Canada’s commercial fisheries are not complying with the statute’s import provisions. The officials also noted the existence of “very good relations” between the Canadian and U.S. governments, “at the working level and at more senior levels,” regarding the Marine Mammal Protection Act’s implementation and compliance provisions.

Focusing on North Atlantic right whales, Fisheries and Oceans Canada officials discussed Canada’s mitigation measures, such as the temporary closure of fishing areas, that are designed both to maintain access to the U.S. market and to protect marine mammals.^[5] The Lobster Council of Canada suggested that such measures “have allowed lobster harvesters to continue to fish when the whales are present in the spring.” The Canadian Whale Institute described Canada’s measures as “unprecedented anywhere in the world,” and the Lobster Council of Canada characterized them as “the most stringent” worldwide. The Canadian Whale Institute and the Lobster Council of Canada asserted that Canada’s measures compare favourably to those in the United States.

Finally, the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen’s Association mentioned that it was “recently alarmed” about Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s collaboration with U.S. environmental non-governmental organizations, such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare, arguing that the collaboration was not “conducive to solving the [North Atlantic right whale] issue” in Canada.

Other Import Requirements

The Fisheries Council of Canada, the Lobster Council of Canada and Louisbourg Seafoods Ltd. identified U.S. and EU recordkeeping requirements in relation to fish and seafood traceability as a concern, with the Lobster Council of Canada contending that traceability in commercial fisheries is a “worldwide trend.” According to Louisbourg Seafoods Ltd., digital recordkeeping is “now becoming a necessity when exporting to markets in the EU and in the [United States].”

Louisbourg Seafoods Ltd. remarked that certain foreign firms will have to meet new U.S. recordkeeping requirements beginning in January 2026, and suggested that it “is a critical time for the seafood sector in Atlantic Canada to prepare for and be ready for the various new requirements of the [Food Safety Modernization Act].”^[6] The Fisheries Council of Canada and the Lobster Council of Canada indicated that they are monitoring regulatory developments relating to this statute. In Louisbourg Seafoods Ltd.’s view, the Food Safety Modernization Act is an example of “ever-changing and evolving” requirements to which processors and others in Canada’s fishing sector must adapt and respond.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada officials noted that the EU regulation that addresses illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing,^[7] which came into effect in 2010, requires all fish and seafood products entering the European Union to be certified as having been obtained in ways that comply with national and international fishing laws and with conservation and management measures.

According to Louisbourg Seafoods Ltd., the “burden and responsibility” of complying with import requirements “invariably falls on processors,” who must “invest in resources to meet these regulatory demands.” It highlighted requirements regarding catch certificates, labelling, packaging and marking, and pre-export approvals. Likewise, the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen’s Association asserted that “international regulatory developments are having a direct effect on harvesters. In the past, these issues were more the concern of [exporters].” That said, the Fisheries Council of Canada suggested that many foreign jurisdictions’ fish and seafood import requirements address practices that are not common in Canada, but added that the country’s fishing sector is “vulnerable to being collateral damage if [it is] not diligent in monitoring potential issues.”

Finally, regarding the United States’ Seafood Import Monitoring Program, the Fisheries Council of Canada said that—as of 23 May 2024—it was considering its submission to those reviewing the program.^[8] The Lobster Council of Canada indicated that it is examining the program with a view to maintaining access to the U.S. market.

Existing and Desired Federal Actions

Witnesses provided their views to the Committee about existing and desired federal actions designed to assist exporters of Canadian fish, seafood and seal products. In particular, with a focus on marine sustainability standards and requirements, they commented on international advocacy, international and domestic collaboration regarding certain fishing and marine mammal issues, and various trade agreements, programs and other measures.

Advocating Internationally

In the opinion of the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association, the Canadian government could help exporters of Canadian fish and seafood products by “tell[ing] the good news story of Canadian fisheries,” especially in Europe and the United States. As well, the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association stressed that, when interacting with U.S. regulators and consumers, the government should “strive to communicate [Canada’s] successes” regarding the protection of marine mammals in the country’s fisheries.

According to the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association, the lack of a federal “ambassador” for fisheries conservation is leading to Canada’s fishing sector being underrepresented in international discussions and in the sector’s “voice” being “replaced” by transnational environmental non-governmental organizations that have their own “self-serving agendas and foreign funding.” The Lobster Council of Canada, Louisbourg Seafoods Ltd. and the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association supported the appointment of such an ambassador, with the Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association suggesting that the result could be more timely adaptation to market volatility because that person would be able to help Canada’s fishing sector.

Finally, regarding the importance of international advocacy in highlighting Canada’s mitigation measures regarding North Atlantic right whales and—thereby—ensuring access to foreign markets, the Lobster Council of Canada noted that it provides foreign fish and seafood importing associations with information about Canada’s measures.

Collaborating Internationally and Domestically

In its written response, Fisheries and Oceans Canada noted that Canada has ratified the first binding international agreement relating to IUU fishing—the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing—that is intended to prevent vessels engaged in such fishing from landing their catches in the ports of United Nations member states. As well, the written response indicated that Canada is chair of the Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing Action Alliance, which is a coalition launched jointly with the United Kingdom and the United States in 2022 to lead international efforts to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada officials stated that they are working with their U.S. counterparts to ensure that Canada’s fish and seafood exports to the United States can continue. The Lobster Council of Canada contended that Fisheries and Oceans Canada “works really closely” with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Regarding collaboration among domestic parties interested in increasing Canada’s exports of fish, seafood and seal products, Fisheries and Oceans Canada officials stated that they work with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. They also pointed out that they are working with Indigenous communities in Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories, the Government of Nunavut and others to ensure that: the European Union considers “the sustainable and humane nature” of Canada’s seal hunt; the “voices” of Canada’s sealing sector are “heard”; and the European Union understands how its import ban on seal products affects Canada’s coastal and Indigenous communities.

The Lobster Council of Canada mentioned that it collaborates with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and added that Global Affairs Canada and its trade commissioners provide “vital eyes on the ground” through their interactions with foreign officials and “importing associations.” Similarly, Louisbourg Seafoods Ltd. characterized Canada’s trade commissioners as “vital” in helping the firm to “connect with and develop relationships” with foreign customers. Moreover, the Lobster Council of Canada said that it works with officials from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada regarding challenges experienced when accessing markets in Asia, Europe and the United States.

Finally, according to the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association, the Canadian government, conservation groups and fishing organizations are collaborating to assure the United States that Canada “can and will” protect marine mammals in order to “retain market access” in that country for Canada’s exports of fish and seafood products. Related to such protection, the Canadian Whale Institute suggested that government-led advisory groups have had “terrific success” in reducing whale entanglements and vessel strikes on Canada’s east coast.

Assisting Through Various Measures

With a focus on trade agreements and the importance of export markets for the prosperity of Canada’s fishing sector, as well as for individual harvesters and processors, Fisheries and Oceans Canada officials noted that the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement and the Canada–EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement ensure the existence of “consistent and stable market access for [Canadian] fish and seafood products.” The Fisheries Council of Canada contended that the “Canadian fishing industry values its trading relationships with both the U.S. and the EU,” and the Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association asserted that “it is critical that we encourage and maintain fair and equitable trade with secure trading partners.”

Concerning existing and desired programs and funds, Fisheries and Oceans Canada officials said that the Canadian government responded to the European Union’s IUU regulation—which requires a catch certificate for each shipment of fish and seafood products that enter the EU market—by developing a Catch Certification Program that “supports Canada’s role … in preventing, deterring and eliminating IUU fishing.”

The Fisheries Council of Canada encouraged the Canadian government to renew the now-expired Canadian Fish and Seafood Opportunities Fund, although the Fur Institute of Canada’s brief argued that this fund should be replaced with “funding programs” relating to “marketing and market access for fish and seafood, including seal products.” Louisbourg Seafoods Ltd. proposed that such programs as the Atlantic Fisheries Fund and “other related programs” should continue to exist. Regarding desired measures, Louisbourg Seafoods Ltd. advocated support for those developing and implementing domestic fish-related traceability programs.

Finally, in order to be able to “shift” its fishing efforts due to the presence of whales, and thereby maintain a supply of fish and seafood products for domestic and foreign markets, the Bay of Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association urged the Canadian government to continue its funding for lobster-related science with the goal of better understanding lobster migration, as well as the distribution and quantity of lobsters in a given area. Emphasizing the importance of upholding or improving Canada’s fishing standards through “well-informed fisheries management decisions” to increase the country’s exports of fish and seafood products, the Fisheries Council of Canada contended that Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s resources are “stretched beyond their limits.”

The Committee’s Thoughts and Recommendations

Canada’s fishing sector is an important contributor to the country’s economy, including because of international trade in fish and seafood products. According to Fisheries and Oceans Canada, exports of such products were valued at $7.6 billion in 2023. In that year, the top three destinations for these products were the United States, China and the European Union, which accounted for 64.0%, 19.0% and 5.5%—respectively—of the value of Canada’s fish and seafood exports. However, trade-related measures in those and other jurisdictions can have negative effects on Canada’s fish and seafood exporters and their employees.

To address some of the negative effects of foreign trade-related measures on Canada’s fishing sector, greater progress could perhaps be made if existing measures were to be supplemented by additional actions. The Committee acknowledges the ongoing efforts of relevant parties throughout Canada that aim to protect marine mammals, with these efforts helping to secure access for Canadian fish and seafood products in foreign markets. Highlighting these efforts and the country’s stringent protection standards would achieve two objectives. The growing number of domestic and foreign consumers who are demanding sustainable fishing practices would become more aware of Canadian fish and seafood products. As well, it would be made clear that Canada’s measures to protect marine mammals meet—if not exceed—the government-established requirements of its main export markets.

Finally, collaboration can play a pivotal role in ensuring continued or new access to foreign markets, including for fish and seafood products. The Committee is aware of the importance of domestic and international co-operation in preserving Canada’s reputation as a reliable exporter of sustainably sourced fish and seafood products. Fostering stronger domestic co-operation and partnerships among governments in Canada, Indigenous communities, sectoral representatives, environmental organizations and others can help Canada’s fish and seafood exporters to meet—if not exceed—foreign marine sustainability requirements. Although domestic co-operation is critically important, it may be insufficient to bring about desired outcomes. For that reason, international collaboration can also be vital in achieving shared goals.

In light of the foregoing, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 1

That the Government of Canada take actions to ensure that foreign jurisdictions are aware of the sustainable fishing practices, as well as the measures to protect marine mammals, that exist in Canada. These jurisdictions should also be informed that seal species are not at risk in Canada. These actions could include enhancing international advocacy designed to highlight Canada’s commitment to protecting such mammals and the country’s compliance with foreign import requirements relating to fish and seafood products. Particular actions should be directed to relevant parties in the United States and the European Union.

Recommendation 2

That the Government of Canada implement measures to facilitate domestic and international co-operation between and among relevant parties. In part, the focus should be maintaining Canada’s international reputation as a reliable and competitive supplier of fish and seafood products, and working with like-minded jurisdictions to ensure that marine sustainability standards are high and requirements are met.

Recommendation 3

That the Government of Canada re-establish the position of Ambassador for Fisheries Conservation.

Recommendation 4

That the Government of Canada direct the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans to obtain written confirmation from the United States’ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that Canada meets or exceeds the requirements that will come into force on 1 January 2026 because of amendments to the United States’ Marine Mammal Protection Act. Once this confirmation is received, the Government should provide copies to all relevant Canadian parties.