Evidence of meeting #147 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was s-238.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Director General, Market Access, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
My understanding is that soup is soup. We don't classify it differently. When soup comes into the country, as it's imported—
Conservative
Director General, Market Access, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
No, it is soup.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
All right. That's interesting.
Soup is soup. For once, the officials have me flabbergasted.
I'm going to pass this off to my friends as I digest this.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Thank you, Mr. Doherty.
Thank you, Chair. I sure am glad that they don't make ivory soup.
All kidding aside, my understanding is that if we pass this legislation, shark fins in all of their forms would no longer be allowed to be imported into the country unless they were attached to a shark. What I just heard was that shark-fin soup purée, composed of shark fins, whether or not they were harvested ethically or humanely in accordance with the laws and standards of Canada, would still be allowed to be imported.
Did I hear that correctly?
Director General, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
The legislation would prohibit the importation of the fin or any part of the fin into Canada. I think that when it comes to a consommé type of thing, if there's no evidence of fin pieces in it, we could not prohibit it.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Mr. Forsyth, is that correct? It is. Okay, thank you.
I want to go back to the officers' statuses when it comes to the legislation. Does a CBSA officer or a Canadian Wildlife Service officer have ex-officio status to enforce the Fisheries Act?
Director General, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I'll have to get back to you. I think it's ex officio.
Conservative
Director General, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I think it probably is too, but I don't have that specificity, so I'll have to....
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
If the coordinating amendment in Bill C-68 in the Senate actually says that Bill C-68 takes precedence and the CBSA officials and Canada Wildlife Service officials and CFIA officials have no official status under the Fisheries Act, then we have an enforcement issue. Would you agree?
Director General, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
I will have to get back to you, but I think that because it's an importation and exportation challenge, the CBSA is authorized to enforce those exportations and importations.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I would agree, because the RCMP has broad, sweeping ex-officio status throughout Canadian legislation, and I'm pretty sure that CBSA has the same. I just wanted to get verification. I'm not expecting this to be a hiccup; I just wanted clarification.
What does the department do as a general rule of practice when it comes to policy changes, whether they are drafted by the government or not?
In this particular case, Bill C-68 is government legislation, although it's being amended in the Senate, but Bill S-238 is a private member's bill. Does the department do a socio-economic impact assessment as a matter of process any time a piece of legislation is put before the House that would affect any of the fisheries or anybody in the jurisdiction of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? If so, was one done for Bill S-238?
Director General, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
It's a private member's bill, so no. Typically there is not a socio-economic impact assessment.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
If it's something that's driven by the government—for example, the recent changes to chinook fisheries on the west coast—was a socio-economic impact assessment done for that?
Director General, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Yes, socio-economic impacts would be done on other regulations.
Conservative
Director General, Strategic Policy, Department of Fisheries and Oceans
They would be done on regulations that are introduced, yes.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
All right. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I would like to move a motion right now, if I may. I move:
That, whereas the public fishery in British Columbia contributes $1.1 billion to Canada’s economy, and whereas the public fishery in British Columbia provides 9,000 jobs while benefiting 300,000 annual license holders, their families and businesses connected to the public fishery’s activities and tourism-related spending, and whereas since 2016, the public fishery in British Columbia has been damaged by unrelenting reductions of access to fisheries caused by the federal government’s preference to close fisheries rather than support balanced fishery enhancement and habitat restoration to grow fishery populations, that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans undertake a study of the socio-economic impact of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans’ decisions to close the recreational fishing of chinook salmon to fully understand the impact of this decision on small businesses and coastal communities; and, as part of its study, the Committee travel to the west coast to meet with those impacted including small businesses that have had to decrease staff numbers due to the reduction of opportunities in the public fishery; and, as part of its study, the Committee assess other measures that could deliver increases in chinook salmon stocks.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Okay, you've heard the motion.
Do you have copies for everybody, Mr. Calkins?
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I'm of the opinion, or have been told, that there are printing issues and that we can't get paper copies.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Just so I understand, my understanding—and I could be wrong—is that to move a motion, it would have to be related to the topic that we are here to discuss today. Otherwise it could be considered a notice of that motion, which requires 48 hours' notice. Am I correct?
Okay, so this is just a notice of that motion.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
No, I'm actually moving the motion, because we're talking about fisheries and socio-economic impacts of fisheries. My motion is specifically about socio-economic impacts, and I'm hoping that it will be accepted by the chair.
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that the motion is outside the scope of Bill S-238 for today. Therefore, I would suggest that it be considered a notice of that motion, which requires 48 hours.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
It is outside of Bill S-238, but it did come up in conversation with the witnesses.