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.