Thank you, Madam Chair, for the invitation to testify today. Since it was only late last month that I testified before this committee, I will forgo my usual introduction of FCC and the sector.

The Canadian seafood sector accounts for $7.6 billion in exports to over 100 countries, and our southern neighbour is our largest market at $4.8 billion of our exports, more than triple the next market. Also noteworthy is that our seafood imports from the U.S. are worth $1.2 billion, leaving us with a trade surplus in seafood of $3.6 billion. I'm pleased to say that our seafood exports to the U.S. are up 57% over the last decade. It goes without saying that we value our trading relationship with the U.S.

Our top export products to the U.S. are lobster, at $1.6 billion; crab, at $1.1 billion; and salmon, at $975 million, the latter being farmed. Halibut and scallops are the distant fourth and fifth, both nearing $200 million. The top imports are salmon, at $415 million; lobster, at $283 million; and crab, at $140 million. Scallops are at $29 million and cod is at $17 million, rounding out the top five.

Under NAFTA, fish and seafood had no tariffs, and that remains the case under CUSMA. Obviously we would want this situation to continue. The important thing to remember is that the U.S. is a net importer of fish and seafood, to the tune of $20 billion annually. That represents 80% of their domestic market. This circumstance could motivate an administration to apply a tariff in the belief that doing so could help the domestic industry. Former President Trump did this with tariffs against Chinese imports, and seafood is the most globally traded food commodity. The global supply chain is complex, and products can be exported and re-exported before they reach their final consumer, so the impacts of tariffs in the U.S. are equally complex. Suffice it to say that we prefer free trade.

Of equal importance is how CUSMA protects us from non-tariff barriers. We don't want other government actions to disadvantage or prohibit our access to the U.S. market. Just a couple of weeks ago, we talked about restrictive import policies and whether they were creating undue barriers to Canadian exports of fish and seafood. Granted, there are some real challenges in the global industry, which governments need to address individually and collectively, but it's important to do so in a way that does not unduly restrict trade.

CUSMA has a dispute-resolution mechanism, which is vitally important, and there are mechanisms under WTO, but the challenge with them is that they are very time-consuming and the offending measure is in place during proceedings, meaning that the damage continues to be done. Reimbursement or retribution after the fact is sometimes cold comfort. Having said that, these provisions are like insurance: You hope you don't need them, but you don't want to get caught without them.

The best way to deal with non-tariff barriers is to try to prevent them in the first place. In order to do that, we need to have a positive relationship built on constructive and regular dialogue. This needs to happen government to government, but also industry to industry. For example, DFO, Agriculture Canada and the CFIA are able to engage with their counterparts to discuss issues of mutual interest. In fact, the NOAA recently reached out to DFO to discuss their review of the seafood import monitoring program, or SIMP, and Canada was the first country called for input. This is helpful and is a signal of a good relationship.

On the industry side, the FCC has a good relationship with our American counterpart, the National Fisheries Institute, and we compare notes on issues of mutual interest. The most recent examples are SIMP and some proposed EU regulations that could affect live lobster exports from both countries. We sought their views on the SIMP review, and we brought to their attention the proposed regulations on animal health transport. The relationship between the two countries is also supported by the fact that they provide secretariat services to the International Coalition of Fisheries Associations, of which I am the current chair of the board. We work closely on behalf of members of our international group, and our respective participation in international dialogues enables more regular conversations about current events.

To sum up, we need CUSMA, as it provides important structure to our trading relationship, but we need to be engaged and present in regular dialogue. Having a team Canada approach is an important step in the lead-up to the CUSMA review.

With that, I thank you and look forward to your questions.