Fisheries Committee on Feb. 25th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We've all heard the motion.

Mr. Battiste.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I'd just like to ask if he could expand on that and give us a rationale. I'm not sure that I understand, the way it's currently written, the purpose of the motion.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Selective fishing gear was traditionally used more on the west coast, with fish wheels. What we're seeing right now is that some of the fishing methods are actually impacting species that are at very low abundance, whether they be gillnets, seine nets or in-river fisheries. There are methods being piloted out there. Pound nets are one example. A similar type of trap net on a boat or a movable platform is also being looked at, where the fish come in through a funnel-type system and they are not taken out of the water or gillnetted in any way. The non-target species can be moved through the system and, with no harm whatsoever, allowed to go up river, while the target species are taken out and harvested. There's already been one study done down on the Columbia River, and they're looking at doing one on the Skeena River this year. It could be very beneficial to some of those stocks that are in extreme states of depletion.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

We're very supportive of this study in terms of conservation. It will give us an opportunity to look at it. In relation to Mr. Calkins' study, I think there could be some merging, potentially, as a result of that.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Just for clarification, do you see us dwelling an awful lot on the non-selective fishing methods, which obviously could create a rub with the people who are currently using those techniques, or will the focus of this really be, “Here are some alternatives that we should consider,” versus “Here are things that we're critical of”?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I think what we need to look at here as a committee is what is best for the fish and the fish stocks in the long term. If we continue with the current practices where certain stocks are going to become either listed under species at risk or of extreme concern because of the impact to non-target species.... We've heard some of this testimony in regard to the Yelloweye Rockfish on the north coast of B.C. We also see it with some of the other species, in-river species fisheries.

What we need to look at as a committee is not whether we're going to step on someone's toes or upset someone's status quo. What we need to look at more is what's best for the fisheries in the long run and what's best for all of Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I hear no further discussion.

(Motion agreed to)

Yes, Mr. Morrissey.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Chair, as notice of motion was given, I will move the following motion:

That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans undertake a study to examine the issue of seafood mislabeling and the potential economic, conservation and food safety risks that it poses to Canadian consumers as well as fishers and producers; that the chair be empowered to coordinate the necessary witnesses, travel, resources and scheduling to complete this task; and that the committee report its conclusions and recommendations to the House of Commons.

I understand that my colleague Madam Gill had some amendments she was going to make.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We've heard the motion.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I want to move the amendment to the motion to ensure more traceability with respect to the original motion. We'll hand out the amendment. The amended motion would read as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans undertake a study to examine the issue of the implementation of a food traceability program to address fraud and mislabeling of seafood products and to examine its potential impact on the economy, conservation and food safety of Canadian consumers as well as fishers and producers; that the chair be empowered to coordinate the necessary witnesses, travel, resources and scheduling to complete this task; and that the committee report its conclusions and recommendations to the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We've heard the proposed amendment. Is there any discussion?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I can also provide further information. Labelling doesn't necessarily fall within the purview of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, because this issue has more to do with agriculture. By including the concept of traceability and, possibly, fraud, this matter would then fall much more within the purview of the fisheries committee.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Now, we're on the motion in its totality, as amended.

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

There has been a high degree of consensus around this table today, and a high number of different studies have been proposed and adopted, so we're going to have a very busy schedule. I take note that this probably falls under CFIA. I understand the Bloc's point, but perhaps the analysts can confirm, or suggest otherwise, that this kind of study, especially focused on labelling, is more within the purview of the CFIA than the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I don't know if Mr. Morrissey, as the mover of the motion, wants to comment on that.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

I know where my colleague is coming from, but this is from the perspective of the seafood industry. We may want to hear from some officials, but it's the impact on the seafood industry at the fisher level and that traceability.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I understand that, but can we hear from the analysts whether this would typically fall under CFIA's jurisdiction more than under DFO's?

[Michael Chalupovitsch, Committee Researcher]

I can confirm that CFIA is in charge of food inspection and labelling. There could be implications for fishers, but CFIA is the agency in charge of it.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

The only point I would make is that I think we are going to support the motion, but this complicates our schedule even more. At some point in time there will have to be a prioritization of all the studies, and I imagine this one may end up falling to the bottom of the heap. Mr. Morrissey should be aware of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to consult with the analyst to determine whether traceability really falls within the purview of our committee.

[Michael Chalupovitsch]

Thank you, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

While Fisheries and Oceans Canada contributes funding to traceability, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is responsible for the inspection and regulation of food products.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Johns.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Seafood fraud and food traceability should fall under this committee, I believe.

Could we maybe roll that into Mr. Arnold's IUU study? There is some relation to it. It's just a thought, because on the seafood fraud piece, it could be connected to that. I'm just putting it out there, but I do believe this committee definitely should be looking at it.

We had testimony at the end of the last session of this committee regarding seafood fraud and food traceability, and there was a piece, of course, that was related to this committee and that maybe we can look at. Maybe the analysts can help split that up a bit.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Cormier.