That would be helpful.
Evidence of meeting #8 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was going.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #8 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was going.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
As you will recall from our discussion in the subcommittee, we didn't want to go down that road. That was a big part of it.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
I think the place to include the rationale for the study and what we did before would be in the actual report. We can debate that when we get there, rather than in this motion, which is basically a motion to say we're going to study closed containment aquaculture.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Lawrence MacAulay Liberal Cardigan, PE
We're also saying “including the evidence of the last...”, which would cover it.
October 18th, 2011 / 3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Bryan Hayes Conservative Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Mr. Chair, the word “focused” is throwing me off. If we're “focused” on that, that doesn't mean that's all we're doing; that leaves room for something else. To me it should be simply that we undertake a study on closed containment aquaculture, period. I don't understand the need for “focused”.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rodney Weston
Yes.
To your point about the Pacific region, Mr. Kamp, are we only talking about salmon, or are we talking finfish aquaculture?
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
I was actually fine with the motion as it was. I think until you get into the specifics of defining what that is, which is essentially the work plan, then it gets trickier. Now we're diving into it, yet I do appreciate Mike's comments. I would be happy to support that at that point, but now getting in and removing the Pacific focus, the Pacific region, I think we have to be careful of the implications of that.
From my recollection, when I first joined the committee back at the end of 2009, the Pacific salmon was the reason we were to move to that as a work plan item. Then it became a focus on aquaculture and the impacts on the Pacific salmon. Then it became very much a look at the impacts of sea lice from fish farms on wild salmon.
It makes a lot of sense to let the Cohen commission do its work. They've heard in greater detail than I'm sure we can in limited time what the impacts of sea lice on wild salmon from fish farms are going to be. Fair enough. If they're going to tackle that and provide recommendations to the government, that will hopefully be helpful and beneficial. But I think we need to focus the work we're doing, certainly on salmon, and commercial-scale or commercial-size aquaculture is at issue.
We have closed containment facilities for other types of fish or finfish on land in North America already. We have lots of examples; it's simply different species, like trout and tilapia. But we don't have that for salmon. We have pilot projects, and we're now looking at scaling up. That's the issue. My understanding is it's the scale and size for the salmon farms that's at issue. I think it's healthy that we're going to go in that direction and look at closed containment and is that feasible for this industry, but how specific we have to get in this motion, I'm not sure.
Certainly, I'm fine with the wording that Mike has suggested thus far.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Following up on what Fin said, I think you're right. We want to try to keep this quite tight, if we can. If we were going to say that the committee undertake a study on closed containment salmon aquaculture, I'm okay with that; I think we're okay with doing that. If we keep it that tight, closed containment salmon aquaculture is really tight. That's what it is.
When we were mentioning finfish.... I want to make sure that if we want to go that tight, we can.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
Are you suggesting that we drop Pacific region and open it up to Canada?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
We only have one example. Whatever we study on this, the economic principles, waste management, whatever, it's going to apply everywhere really, so I don't see it as being necessarily an Atlantic thing. It's going to be where a closed containment facility is located and the economics of it going forward.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
I have a question for new members of the committee. I think it would be helpful if I had an exact definition of closed containment.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Can we have it now, though, before we move on? This is the discussion, but I need to know exactly what closed containment is for me to participate in the discussion.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
NDP
Fin Donnelly NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Chair, could we hear the motion as amended at this point?