Debates of Sept. 28th, 2020

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am hearing multiple conversations at once: yourself, the house leader and many at once.

Something is wrong.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

That is fair. I will ask everyone who is at home to place themselves on mute unless they have something to say.

There is no dissenting voice. It is agreed.

There have been many firsts these past few months, and today is no exception. While many had an opportunity last week to familiarize themselves with the new process, I want to briefly outline the next steps and avoid any confusion.

Before I read the question, I will ask the Table to produce the list of members participating virtually, and who will later be called to vote. I will then read the question.

I will first ask those physically present in the House who are in favour of the motion to rise. I will then ask those physically present who oppose the motion to do the same. This is the normal procedure we are all familiar with.

Afterward, the table officer will call the names of those participating virtually by party in alphabetical order, starting with the party with the largest number of seats in the House, continuing with all the other parties and then independent members. It is essential that members' cameras are turned on for the duration of the vote. This allows the authentication of members, which is required by the House motion and is essential to the integrity of the decision-making process.

Once a member's name is called by the Table, that member must turn on their microphone and indicate how they intend to vote by clearly stating either “I vote for the motion” or "I vote against the motion”. I would ask members to limit themselves to those words only.

In French, you should clearly say, “Je vote pour la motion” or “Je vote contre la motion”. I ask the members to use only these phrases.

I would ask members to please not turn on their microphones in advance. That can make their image appear in place of that of the person currently voting. Once they have voted, members should please mute their microphones.

You must remain connected to the sitting until the results of the vote are announced. If your name is not called by the table officer when the members of your party are being recognized to vote, please wait until all the members have been called. At that point I will invite any member who was not named but who heard the question to identify themselves. You can do so by using the “raise hand” function of the video conference application. I will then name each member who raised their hand in order to allow their vote to be recorded.

If at any moment during a vote, or when trying to join a sitting virtually, members experience technical difficulties, they should please contact the IT ambassador at the number indicated in the invitation. The IT ambassador will provide regular updates to the Table.

The list of members voting by video conference has now been established for use by the Table.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to point out to you that with all the confusion around me I intended to vote for the motion, but I am concerned that you understood that I voted against. I would like to ensure that my vote is recorded in favour of this motion.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Usually when there is a request for unanimous consent, the Chair asks members to respond in the affirmative to determine whether there is agreement.

This being a hybrid sitting of the House, were the Chair to proceed in this fashion, if there were any dissenting voices, particularly for members participating via video conference, they may not be audible.

Therefore, for the sake of clarity, I will only ask for those who are opposed to the request to express their disagreement. In this way, the Chair will hear clearly if there are any dissenting voices and I will accordingly be able to declare whether there is unanimous consent to proceed.

I forgot to mention that it is necessary to have the unanimous consent of the House to change a vote.

All those opposed to the request of the hon. member will please say nay.

[An hon. member]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I voted, and as is the case now, I could not see my face on the monitor. I just wanted to be sure that my vote was properly recorded.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Your vote was counted.

Order. Pursuant to order made earlier today, the Table has contacted any members who were unable to participate in the vote because of technical difficulties. I therefore ask that the votes for the following members be recorded as follows: the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly and leader of the Bloc Québécois votes in favour of the motion; the hon. member for Montarville votes in favour of the motion.

The member for Fleetwood—Port Kells votes against the motion.

The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #1

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the amendment to the amendment defeated.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I noticed something about a number of members voting virtually during the vote tonight. I am not going to list names or ridings at this point, but I will bring it to your attention because it might be a good time for you to remind members of this. A number of members voted without jackets, for example, and there were a couple of props that I saw on people's screens.

It might be a good time to remind people that being virtual is much like being in the House and there is a dress code and certain decorum that is required. It might be a good time for you to remind members, for the following votes, that those things are still appropriate when they are voting virtually.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I want to thank the hon. member for a very good point.

I want to remind all members that when they are voting, what they have in the background cannot be a prop or promote a certain ideology. It has to be as neutral as possible, much like what we have in the House. When voting, male members have to be wearing a jacket of some sort in order to speak. Normally, we have to wear a tie in the House and I would encourage everyone to wear a tie.

While we are on the topic, I want to remind all members that it is up to them to be in an area where they have good connectivity. If they can plug directly into their network, it makes it that much better. If they are in a place where the Wi-Fi is not very strong, they should find themselves a place where it is strong enough to vote and be heard.

I would like to thank all hon. members for their participation on this very historic evening.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I want to make a clarification. I noticed that more than a dozen members turned off their video after they voted and before the count was read. My understanding of the instruction is that members must keep their video on from the beginning of the vote until the vote is counted. Is that correct?

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

That is correct. I remind all members that when they are voting, their video has to stay on from the beginning until the end of the vote.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise on a point of order. I have been in touch with the hon. member for Fredericton and she believed her vote was counted and confirmed by the clerk, but I may have missed it. I did not hear you read it out. She had issues connecting through Zoom. The hon. member for Fredericton believes that she voted and that she voted against the motion.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Did she have a record of that?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, she had a video conversation with the clerk separately and believes her vote was counted, so I want to make sure I register that.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Unfortunately, we do not have a record of that. What we will do is check with the technical crew and get back and see what the results are. Once we have that, we will count it if that is appropriate.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is bound to be a glitch or two, but it was confirmed by both the member and a member of her staff in separate emails to me that she had voted and they were surprised not to hear her name read out with those who voted by making independent calls to verify their vote.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I want to thank the hon. member for bringing that up.

Are there any further questions or comments?

Are there any other points of order? The hon. member for Banff—Airdrie on a point of order.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I did not think of this one earlier, but I am also aware that there were a number of members who were utilizing social media, for example, with pictures of the voting from the Zoom meeting. That is also something that is considered inappropriate, much like taking a picture within the House itself. It might be a good time to remind members about that as well, or maybe perhaps a ruling from you on that, Mr. Speaker, because it is new territory that we are in. I wanted to raise that with you as well.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

That is an item that was mentioned when we first started, so I want to remind the hon. members. I know they are excited and this is a historic night and they want to take a picture but they should not be taking pictures and posting them on the web. That is against the rules of the House while someone is voting.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Fisheries

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place in Adjournment Proceedings to pursue a question I asked just last week of the Minister of Fisheries.

The response from the minister was far from adequate, but I did not expect to feel the rage I now feel in taking the question up again. The question last week was about whether the minister was prepared to act on the Cohen Commission's recommendation 19 to remove the toxic fish factories near Discovery Islands.

I feel as though I am experiencing déjà vu all over again. I am one of those people in the country who remembers the collapse of our cod stocks. I am a Maritimer. I remember the moment when it was really the large offshore dragger companies that declared the moratorium, because the cod stocks were gone.

In 1998, Michael Harris wrote the horrible narrative, the deep details of the corrupted science within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in his book, Lament for an Ocean. I read it and gave him a blurb for the back of the book, which was that after reading this book, I would not trust DFO with my aquarium.

I did not know that it was possible to be this angry again. I thought the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had begun to understand the notion of sustainability. However, the Cohen Commission, at a cost of $25 million, commissioned by the previous government under Stephen Harper, looked at the collapse of salmon returns when in 2009 only one and a half million salmon returned up the Fraser River, instead of the five million that were expected. This year is the all-time low, a return of 270,000 salmon.

First nations up and down the Fraser, up and down the coast are declaring the collapse of Pacific salmon. It is a disaster. The committee on fisheries and oceans was studying this very matter until prorogation pulled the plug on it.

When I asked the minister if she was prepared to act by September 30, which is the deadline, she said that several steps were under way. I did not know those steps would be fiction from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Once again, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is cooking its science. How? It issued it today, to say that the risk to salmon from those open pen toxic fish factories was a minimal risk, that there was no need to close them down at the Discovery Islands. The minister has launched a consultation with some of the first nations involved, but not all of course.

How is it possible that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans could say such a thing? In March of this year, DFO gave those salmon farms virtual permission for out-of-control sea lice. As a result, three different academic studies found that 99% of the 2020 juvenile sockeye migration through the Discovery Islands were infected at levels we know will reduce their survival.

How could it be that DFO now says it is low risk? As marine biologist, Alexandra Morton, said, DFO did not assess the impact of sea lice, the most visible threat. If we are going to do a study to see whether an activity is dangerous to salmon, let us exclude the number one cause of disease and danger to the wild salmon populations, the burgeoning sea lice. There is a reason for these companies in our waters, Norwegian-owned fish farms, but in Norway they are moving to closed containment.

The Liberal government promised in its platform to end open pen fish farms. When will it happen?

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Madam Speaker, when I was first appointed as the parliamentary secretary in 2017, I read the Cohen commission report from front to back. As a person who came to the House to improve the lives and opportunities of future generations, the issue of wild salmon immediately spoke to me as an opportunity to contribute to something that mattered to many British Columbians. I spent time with stream keepers, first nations, fishermen and non-profits to better understand the potential impact of fish farms on wild salmon.

I was happy to serve as the parliamentary secretary who worked on passing all five major environmental bills through the House from the previous Parliament. This included changes to the Fishery Act, which restored protections for fish and fish habitat and created new modern safeguards. I acted to defend the salmon enhancement program and advocated to get more funding into ecosystem restoration through programs such as the oceans protection plan and more recently through the $142-million B.C. salmon fund.

After a brief period in Transport, I returned to my current position during a time when our salmon are facing their most historic crisis. My earliest days on the file were spent on first nation's territory and on the site of the Big Bar landslide. This devastating slide is putting salmon further at risk and our government has made all possible investments to mitigate the effects of this natural disaster on wild salmon. I say this because I want the member and every member in this House, as well as British Columbians watching this at home, to know that wild Pacific salmon are a top priority of our government.

In the last election campaign, we promised to transition away from open-net pen finfish aquaculture on the B.C. coast, and the minister is committed to delivering on that promise. The minister took some steps in that direction by announcing today that we are committed to an area-based management approach to aquaculture, starting in the Discovery Islands. I know that the member and others in British Columbia were hopeful that the announcement today was going to be an announcement to immediately withdraw the net pens in the Discovery Islands. While this is well within the minister's control and power, there are a number of important factors that were not immediately considered when the recommendation was first drafted by Justice Cohen, the primary of which is our government's commitment to first nations reconciliation and to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

First nation communities have rightfully acknowledged the urgency of the response to the Cohen recommendations, but have also been very clear that they cannot accept unilateral decisions on what happens in their territory. This is an opportunity for us to work together with all affected first nations and stakeholders to build a better future for everyone, and that is exactly what our government is doing.

In terms of determining the risk level posed by farms in the recommendation, DFO created a formal scientific assessment framework and conducted nine scientifically peer-reviewed risk assessments on pathogens that are known to cause disease. I want to be very specific here. We are a government that takes science seriously, and it is important for anyone listening to or reading this speech to understand the entirety of what I am about to say. For each of the nine risk assessments, DFO found that each individual pathogen provided a minimal risk to the abundance and diversity of wild Fraser River sockeye salmon. Their assessment does not include further analysis of the cumulative risk of all nine pathogens taken together, either independently or in conjunction with other cumulative risks on wild salmon, including sea lice, climate change or overharvesting.

We continue to build on our body of science and on our understanding of the marine environment. This includes how we manage aquaculture. While there still remains no direct smoking gun that I can point to today, I can say our government is committed to a precautionary approach and moving forward with a responsible transition from open-net pen finfish aquaculture on the west coast of British Columbia.