I've moved it up. I hope that's better. I'm getting a nod from the clerk.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll start over for Madame Gill.
On Monday the discussion was because these harvesters need certainty. They're making significant investments in their vessels and paying tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars for freezers. That equipment isn't just a one-year process or a one-year investment for them. They also need to line up suppliers for their products, such as the tubs they're using. All of those pieces come into play. They're looking for long-term certainty and they were looking for an indefinite or a permanent reversal on this reinterpretation. That was what we'd hoped to see back from the minister.
The commitment was that the committee would discuss it further if we weren't happy with it. We've heard from the stakeholders that the statement put out by the minister and the parliamentary secretary was just more of the same. It's a status quo for this year with no commitment after that time, and that's not what these stakeholders need.
Around this committee we saw members from all parties nodding heads, realizing that this reinterpretation was impacting the harvesters and the communities they support. It needed immediate action, and all we saw was a restatement of the position that it is not going to be enforced this year, and nothing beyond that. That's not what the harvesters and Canadians are looking for.
That is why I think we need to see a stronger statement or a stronger position, and a longer-term position from the minister on this reinterpretation. Perhaps the regulation needs to be changed, because from what I see, it is in the wording of the regulation, and enforcement staff are expected to enforce the regulations as written. The minister has the power to change those regulations, so we need to know why the reinterpretation was implemented and why it cannot be reversed. Why is the minister dragging her feet on this?