House of Commons Hansard #272 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was women.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
The hon. member will have seven minutes coming to her when this topic comes back to the House.
The time provided for the consideration of this item of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to follow up on a question I asked the minister on November 8, 2017. At that time, it was day 76 of the occupation of two open net salmon farms in the Broughton Archipelago. I asked the minister if he would meet with B.C. and first nations governments to discuss moving these farms off the wild salmon migration route, yes or no. The minister replied, “The simple answer is yes.” Today is day 208, and they are still waiting. They have no other choice but to take the government to court.
The 'Namgis First Nation is in court this week, seeking a judicial review of Fisheries and Oceans Canada policy that does not mandate testing for the blood virus, piscine reovirus, or PRV, before the scheduled transfer of Atlantic salmon smolts to Marine Harvest's open net salmon farm in 'Namgis territory. The first nation is also seeking an injunction to prevent the minister from issuing a licence permitting the transfer of those smolts.
Despite the first nations' repeated attempts to engage the minister on this crucial issue and despite what the minister says, he has not consulted with them.
Even with their constitutionally protected rights and the government's promise to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, Canada has not consulted nor sought 'Namgis consent to the unlawful transfer of disease-infested salmon into its territory.
Chief Don Svanvik states:
We have made every attempt to engage Canada in good faith on their PRV policy and the transfer of Atlantic salmon into our territory, but it refused to consult with us...Namgis has no other option to protect wild salmon, our title and rights and ultimately who we are as a people but to ask the Court to intervene to prevent the serious, irreversible harm being visited upon us by Canada and Marine Harvest.
As the parliamentary secretary knows, I asked the minister about this at committee this morning. The minister said that he had the opportunity to meet with 'Namgis leadership in previous visits to B.C. and that senior officials were in regular contact. He said that the assertion that they did not or had not consulted with 'Namgis was not representative. However, a press release from the 'Namgis states:
Marine Harvest is preparing to restock their Swanson Island fish farm approximately 16 km east of Alert Bay (‘Namgis territory) with Atlantic salmon despite ‘Namgis’ strenuous objection and lack of consent....the Minister has not consulted with ‘Namgis and has not even replied to any of the multiple letters ‘Namgis has sent to the Minister over the last three months.
Is this what first nations can expect from the government when it comes to consultation?
Will the government accept the 'Namgis' assertion that they have not been consulted and call them instead of forcing them into court?
The parliamentary secretary is from British Columbia. He is fully aware of the following. When it comes to RAS, recirculating aquatic systems, the train is leaving the station and B.C. is not on it; Canada is not on it. Canada has no strategy for modernizing salmon aquaculture. Land-based closed containment aquaculture represents an opportunity for Canada, B.C. in particular, to play a leading role in an emerging market.
Terry Beech LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his comments. He and I are neighbours; we share a border. We also share a passion for serving our constituents, and I greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak to this issue today.
As a British Columbian, I understand the very real concerns that individuals have about finfish aquaculture. In fact, since taking the role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I have spent a considerable amount of time researching and learning about this particular issue. I have done site visits at facilities throughout British Columbia, have had meetings with stakeholders, and have worked with members of the Pacific caucus who have expressed great interest in the overarching issue. I have compiled more than 500 pages of reports and have participated in meetings with more than 100 stakeholders.
The situation is of concern to our government, and we are very much looking for constructive ways to move forward in a way that is satisfactory to indigenous people, the aquaculture industry, the province, as well as the federal government. As we have said many times before, the only way we can find solutions to these situations is through meaningful and constructive dialogue. We saw demonstrations of this when we held various symposiums last summer.
The minister has previously noted the many opportunities he has had to discuss aquaculture in British Columbia with provincial and indigenous leaders, covering the full range of issues in respect of environmental concerns, scientific evidence, the importance of the sector as an economic driver, and importantly, following through on the government's response to recommendations made by the Cohen commission. These meetings are always fruitful and aim to find common ground.
Of paramount importance in these discussions is respect, respect for the rights of indigenous people, respect for the rights of individuals to engage in peaceful protest, as well as respect for free enterprise that is operating within the regulatory framework which has been put in place to protect the marine environment.
The aquaculture sector currently has 20 economic development agreements with numerous indigenous nations covering approximately 80% of all salmon farms in the province. Moreover, industry has committed that no new farms will be developed without the full support and direct participation of indigenous communities. This, combined with the broader national discussion, is an important backdrop through which to consider the situation at hand and the occupation of the farms in question.
While we may not be able to reach a similar agreement in this particular case, I do believe that industry as well as indigenous communities can co-exist in the province. In fact, I have been encouraged by the many conversations I have had that point to how we can work closely together to create real economic benefits for communities while protecting our marine environment.
Our government also takes our commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples very seriously and we are actively committed to building a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples. The minister and I had the opportunity to discuss how this can be accomplished in concrete terms with four different indigenous groups when we visited British Columbia just last week.
Renewed nation-to-nation relationships based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership is the foundation for transformative change. Fisheries and Oceans Canada officials are presently engaged in concluding negotiations for treaties and reconciliation agreements at six treaty tables in British Columbia alone.
I believe that through these and other respectful and constructive discussions, we are demonstrating to the Canadian people and the world that we are following through with our commitment to indigenous peoples.
Fin Donnelly NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's comments, but I ask him to encourage his government to work with the Namgis First Nation and its company Kuterra on a transition plan to modernize this industry to safe, land-based, closed containment. Speaking of that, it is very time sensitive that Canada move on this.
I want to point out a few very important facts. Several commercial-scale Atlantic salmon land-based, closed containment projects are already underway around the world. The U.S.A. has six facilities in development that will produce more than 200,000 tonnes of land-based farmed salmon. Other countries that are also following this lead are Norway, Scotland, Denmark, Poland, South Africa, Switzerland, China, and France. Here in Canada we have three companies, Kuterra, CanAqua, and Sustainable Blue, and they—
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite bringing up RAS and closed containment. I, along with the member from West Vancouver, had the opportunity to visit Kuterra in British Columbia last summer and tour the facility with indigenous leaders from the community. We have also worked with many stakeholders to examine the potential of this technology.
In our most recent budget we invested in the fisheries and aquaculture clean technology adoption program which encourages Canadian fisheries and aquaculture industries to reduce the potential environmental impacts of their activities. In addition, our government continues to respect our commitments under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights Indigenous Peoples, not only through treaty table discussions on fisheries, but in many other areas as well.
Again, as I noted in my previous comments, we are concerned with the ongoing protests at aquaculture sites in the Broughton archipelago and are very much committed to taking concrete steps toward a respectful and constructive solution.
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to rise tonight and participate in this adjournment debate. I want to follow up on a question that I first asked on February 12 in question period. At the time, I asked the question of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who as members know is also the member for Papineau. Unfortunately, at the time he did not respond. Rather, the response came from the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development. The question was on interprovincial trade. Challenges at that time were being experienced between our friends in Alberta and British Columbia. Members will recall that due to the British Columbia government's efforts to block the TMX, the Trans Mountain expansion, Alberta was threatening to ban the import of B.C. wine into Alberta.
As we know, the industry within Canada is greatly affected by trade barriers between our provinces. It falls on the Liberal government to finally take a stand to end trade barriers between our provinces. The challenges that are faced by provinces because of trade barriers account for up to $130 billion in lost economic activity. This all stems from the interpretation of the Constitution, section 121, which states:
All Articles of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of any one of the Provinces shall, from and after the Union, be admitted free into each of the other Provinces.
Unfortunately, over the years, the interpretation of that section has been deemed to mean only tariffs. However, the reality is that non-tariff barriers between our provinces are having a significant impact on our economy.
In fact, the Liberal government's efforts to sign the Canadian free trade agreement were a failure. If we look at the CFTA, we find that the agreement itself is 353 pages long, yet 146 of those pages are exceptions that permit trade barriers to remain in place. They range on issues from mining to livestock medicine to timber processing to wine and beer. As I travel through my constituency and constituencies across this country, I get the opportunity to meet with small business owners. They may be distilleries or craft breweries, but they are small business owners who are trying their best to develop a product, develop a business, and to market it across the province and the country. In talking to some of these business owners, they tell me it is easier for them to import into the United States than into a neighbouring province. This is wrong.
In fact, Andrew Coyne of the National Post wrote about the failed efforts of the Liberals on interprovincial trade. He stated, “for all the attempts to paint the new Canadian Free Trade Agreement as a heroic achievement there was no disguising the fact that what the ministers were here to announce was a failure.”
Therefore, on February 12, as shadow secretary for interprovincial trade, I asked the government about its failed and poor record on interprovincial trade. In response, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development said, “we strongly advocate and support free trade among the provinces and territories.” Then he pointed to the Canadian free trade agreement as an example of this. However, as I have outlined, most of that was exceptions to the rule, and so poor was the Canadian free trade agreement on many of the issues that only two provinces have introduced legislation to ratify the CFTA.
I want to ask the government and the parliamentary secretary why they will not stand up for small businesses and tear down the trade barriers that are blocking our economic productivity.
Kamal Khera LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to comments made earlier by the hon. member for Perth—Wellington regarding interprovincial trade.
Our government has shown tremendous leadership in advancing internal trade throughout Canada. On April 7, 2017, our government and all of the provinces and territories announced the successful completion of the Canadian Free Trade Agreement. Our government is proud to have played a leadership role in the agreement's negotiations. We worked in collaboration with provinces and territories in order to craft a new agreement, an ambitious and modern framework for more open trade within Canada.
It is the most comprehensive reform to Canada's internal market in over 20 years. Since entering into force on July 1, 2017, the Canadian Free Trade Agreement has delivered. It includes a comprehensive new process to align regulations, remove barriers, and help reduce business costs. It provides broader access for Canadian companies to billions of dollars in government procurement contracts across the country. In fact, for the first time, Canadian companies operating in certain regulated professions, such as engineering, are now able to compete for government contracts across the country. In addition, suppliers to most publicly owned energy utilities can also now bid for a range of government contracts in many parts of the country.
The agreement's rules provide a framework that opens up trade within our borders in virtually every sector of the economy. It helps ensure that businesses based in Canada have the same or better access to our market as our international trading partners. More open markets are helping Canadian businesses scale up at home so that they can compete globally.
This agreement maintains strong provisions to ensure that Canadians can work in different jurisdictions across the country. It also ensures transparency and accountability for regulatory notification and for public reporting. The Canadian Free Trade Agreement has increased maximum monetary penalties to better ensure that governments comply with the agreement's rules.
Finally, the agreement is forward looking. It sets out a process and timetable toward enhanced trade in the few sectors of the economy that are not currently covered. That includes the sale of alcoholic beverages. To that end, our government worked with provinces and territories to secure a commitment to establish a working group on the interprovincial trade in alcohol. This working group is mandated to propose actions within one year to further liberalize domestic trade in alcohol in a socially responsible manner. Its work is well under way. Our government is committed to working hard to stand up for freer trade in our country.
We want to enhance the flow of goods, services, investments, and workers across the country, without any impediments. We want to continue working with all parties towards the rapid and co-operative resolution of any issues.
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary says that the CFTA has delivered. The fact of the matter is that is simply not true. There are still 146 pages of exceptions out of 353, and it is still illegal in most provinces to transport beer and wine for personal use.
The parliamentary secretary talks about the working groups that have been established, yet when I asked an Order Paper question about how those working groups were progressing, what I got back was zero information. In fact, the government said it could not even provide the list of attendees of the working group meetings, the agenda items, or the decisions and agreements made, because it would be injurious to federal-provincial relations.
How poorly are these working group meetings going that the government cannot even disclose the attendees of the meetings without it being injurious to federal-provincial relations?
Why will the government simply not stand up for the right of individuals to transport beer and wine across provincial boundaries without impediments? It is good for the economy.
Kamal Khera Liberal Brampton West, ON
Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt about our government's commitment to strengthening trade within Canada. We have made the biggest strides in a generation to modernize Canada's internal trade framework. In the face of continued global uncertainty, we have taken a leadership role in working together with provinces and territories to enhance our domestic market.
We remain committed to freer trade within Canada, because we know that is good for the middle class and that is good for our economy.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 8:02 p.m.)