Fisheries Committee on Nov. 25th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead, Mr. Arnold.

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

I'd like clarification from Mr. Weiler.

Is that an amendment? Could he read it again, please?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I will, gladly.

The amendment I put forward adds to “that the government has committed to transition away from open net salmon farms” the words “in British Columbia”. Then, at the end of the motion, it would say, “to end the practice of purchasing farm salmon from open net salmon farms”, and I would add at that point “from British Columbia”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead, Mr. Arnold.

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

I'll speak to that.

As I mentioned earlier, and I believe Ms. Barron even agreed, the government promised a traceability program back in 2019, I believe. I'd have to take a look and see.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

We did the traceability study.

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

Because we don't have a traceability program in Canada for seafood, which was promised, how can we determine where the salmon that comes to the parliamentary restaurant might be sourced from?

It's an approved and accepted industry in Atlantic Canada. To have this committee try to determine what the House of Commons serves in the restaurant, food that has obviously gone through all the inspection and approval processes required to be served commercially.... Any food that is sold in a restaurant or café has to go through very stringent processes that determine, number one, where the salmon may have come from, and number two, whether it is safe or not, which is another thing. I can't agree with trying to pin this down when I really doubt that the source of the salmon could be pinned down.

We've heard from groups like Oceana, which did the survey of traceability, intake or origin of seafood in retail outlets in Canada. They found, I believe, that 75% to 78% were not as they were labelled. To try to amend this motion somehow to make it applicable and workable.... I think we need to reject both the amendment and the premise that we can direct the House of Commons on what they serve.

As I stated, the industry in Atlantic Canada is promoted and welcomed by many of the provincial jurisdictions there. We don't know that the food and the salmon being served doesn't originate in those provinces.

With that, I'll turn it over to my colleagues, who may have comments on this amendment as well.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead, Ms. Barron.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, thank you to my colleague MP Weiler for his amendment.

I want to respond to some of the concerns that were brought forward by my colleague MP Arnold.

First of all, two things can be true at the same time. I absolutely agree that a traceability program is not in place to effectively label seafood in order for us to have a good understanding of what it is. I agree with that statement 100%.

Also, we have a House of Commons parliamentary restaurant that knows full well that they are serving open-pen farmed fish from British Columbia. It's advertised as such. It is sold as such. We could go on about how legitimate that is. I'm pretty sure that you have a pretty direct line to know that what you're purchasing is farmed.

The other thing to put my colleague's mind at rest is that the amendment that's been made specifies now that we are talking about B.C. farmed fish only, so the argument around the east coast no longer applies to this motion.

I hope that puts my colleague's mind at ease when he votes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

I will go to Mr. Bragdon, but I will say that we have eight minutes left. We have two votes to do—the amendment, the vote and so on.

Go ahead, Mr. Bragdon.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you for that point of clarification, Mr. Chair. It's as clearly defined as it can be. I appreciate that.

However, there is a concern, and the concern is this. Whether it is the traceability aspect or the importance of the vitality of this industry to the east coast of Canada, the message it would send back home, back to Atlantic Canada, would basically be that, no, we don't want anything to do with farmed fish or farmed salmon in the people's House. The last time I checked, this was a very important part of the confederation. As surely as British Columbia is part of the confederation, and rightly so, so is Prince Edward Island, so is New Brunswick, so is Newfoundland and so is Nova Scotia.

I think that stating the priorities of one region in this manner and sending a direct message to basically anyone in that business across the country that there are huge concerns around this or that salmon being offered in the people's House dining room isn't legitimate is the wrong message to send at this time.

Furthermore, as part of the conditions on what was happening on the B.C. west coast, it was made very clear that there would be a full transition plan put in place. There would be employment and alternative sources of employment made available for those in the aquaculture industry. We've heard direct testimony that this was not the case at all. The agreement has not been lived up to. The implementation plan has not been followed through. We're moving through to a back-end type of approach to this issue, at best, without any of the steps having been put in place on the front end.

I think it sends entirely the wrong message, Mr. Chair. Obviously, I think this motion should be defeated based on that premise. It muddies the water, it confuses it, it sends mixed messages to Canada and it's the wrong approach for this committee to take at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Bragdon.

I hope we can get to the vote before we're cut off.

All those in favour of the amendment by Mr. Weiler?

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Motion negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We've exhausted just about all of our time. All I will say is that we were going to proceed to instructions to the analysts for the drafting of the report on the northern cod. I want to confirm that the written drafting instructions and recommendations, as well as written briefs, are to be submitted to the clerk no later than Friday, December 6, at 5 p.m.

We also have to adopt the budget before the clerk has to pay it out of her own pocket. I have a budget here requiring $500 for a study. It's small enough that perhaps the clerk could look after it if we turn it down.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I presume we're all in favour of adopting the budget.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

The meeting is adjourned.