Fisheries Committee on Oct. 7th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

If I may, when the debate resumes, it will be on the amendment of Monsieur Deschênes, that the motion be amended in subparagraph (b)(3) by replacing the words “three two-hour meetings” with the words “two two-hour meetings”. That's the amendment that was proposed to it.

Is there any more debate on Monsieur Deschênes's amendment?

All those in favour of Monsieur Deschênes's amendment?

(Amendment agreed to)

We're back to the motion as amended by Monsieur Deschênes.

Is there any debate on this?

Mr. Klassen.

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

It appears to me that there is a report coming out shortly, so I don't think the timing of this is in the best interest of this committee. Right now we'd be doing double the work by waiting for this report that is almost completed. We could be using the time of this committee in a much better way. Last year the draft report on the transition for salmon in B.C. was released by ISED. The intergovernmental task force on salmon aquaculture is based in their department, not in Fisheries.

It just appears to me that it would be in the best interest of this committee to not be starting on something that will be coming forward as a report shortly anyway.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Klassen.

Next, I have Mr. Small, and then it's Mr. Cormier.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

With all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Chair, this study could be several months down the road. I guess the report that Mr. Klassen has referred to is pretty much imminent, and we know that this study may not even happen until this time next year. Who knows? I don't know if that's a reason not to have this study completed, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Small.

Next, I have Mr. Cormier.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Further to the comment by my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, I agree with him that a report is about to be published soon. If we moved ahead with this study, we would be duplicating virtually the same work that has already been done.

I therefore propose an amendment for distribution in both official languages.

I move to delete items b. and c. from Mr. Gunn's motion and replace them with the following:

That the Committee hold a two-hour meeting with representatives of the intergovernmental task force on the salmon aquaculture transition in British Columbia to receive an update on their work.

In English, it will be to remove sections b) and c) of the motion and replace them with the following: “That the committee schedule one two-hour meeting to hear from officials from the Intergovernmental Task Force for Salmon Aquaculture Transition in British Columbia, so that the committee can be provided an update on their work”.

Doing that does not add another full study to the list of studies we already have, and at least we will be able to get an update from those officials who were working on the transition plan, on where it's at and where we go from there. I just think that doing that will again save some time from the list of studies we already have in front of us.

This is the amendment I'm proposing, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cormier.

There has been another amendment that's been put forward to this motion that has been amended already by Mr. Deschênes. Debate will continue on this amendment from Mr. Cormier.

I see that Mr. Gunn has his hand up.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Obviously, there's a handful of study motions that have been passed, and we're going to determine the order of what we study at a later date, but the idea that we are going to remove sections about talking to individuals who are having their livelihoods destroyed by the lack of certainty created by this decision and by DFO is completely unacceptable.

We have thousands of people in British Columbia who don't know if they're going to be able to pay their mortgage. They don't know if they're going to be able to put food on their table to feed their families. They don't know if their jobs are going to be there six months from now, nine months from now or a year from now.

While I would love to give the government the benefit of the doubt that a magic solution is just around the corner, I believe it is the purpose of this committee to look into these issues and, in my case, stand up for my constituents. I would be happy to hear an update from the department. That's why we have here in section b) a meeting with the Minister of Fisheries as well as b)(ii) with relevant officials from the Department of Fisheries. That's fine, but we need to hear from the individuals whose livelihoods are going to be potentially destroyed by these decisions. We need to talk to harvesters with generational employment, and we need to talk to industry experts and scientific experts who can try to rationalize the science behind this decision.

I think it is essential that this gets put on the books. Presumably, it will be up to the committee at another time to determine the timing of when we look at these issues, but I don't think we should be sweeping under the rug decisions that have the potential to impact the livelihoods of thousands of people, thousands of Canadians. I should also point out that this has the potential to set a very concerning precedent for other provinces in Atlantic Canada and Quebec that have their own aquaculture industries.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank very much, Mr. Gunn.

Next, I have Mr. Cormier.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I totally understand Mr. Gunn's point when he says that there are people affected by that, whatever the decision will be, but the group that we're talking about, that we want here to talk about this, also heard from some of those people from his riding probably. At least they can get us an update on what they're doing and where the plan is now. Instead of having a couple of meetings on that, let's hear from this group.

I propose that we vote on the amendment, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Cormier.

Mr. Arnold is next, and then it's Mr. Deschênes.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to speak against Mr. Cormier's proposal. It sounds like the top-down approach that we've seen from this government. Mr. Gunn's proposal is simply to hear from the people who are affected, not just from the people who are making the rules. I support Mr. Gunn's proposal here, without the amendment from Mr. Cormier.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold.

Mr. Deschênes, you have the floor.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Chair, considering that the committee will be conducting other studies prior to the proposed study, and that we've been told that a transition plan will be publicly available soon, I think we should retain the existing wording of the motion, while keeping in mind that our study will probably draw to a close after the transition plan becomes public. The plan's signatories will then be able to come and defend it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Is there anybody else who would like to weigh in at this point? No.

With that, we can go to a vote on Monsieur Cormier's amendment.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

The amendment is defeated, so we're back to debate on the motion as amended by Monsieur Deschênes. Would anybody else like to weigh in on that at this point?

No. Let's go to a vote.

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Okay, so that disposes of it.

There are two quick items I'm really hoping we can get through in the next four minutes here.

Number one is that we have the budget for the redfish study. You all have been sent this. Is everybody happy to approve this budget as it was circulated?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

We need to finalize the report for abandoned and derelict vessels. From discussions that have been had, I don't believe that there are any more changes to the draft version that was sent around by the analysts, so are we comfortable with approving that as is?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

We need a title for this report. The analysts have put together a title for this that could be shared, unless people have any ideas for what they want to put forward for the.... Let me mention this one. The analysts suggest “Acting together to address derelict vessels in Canada”. Does that sound agreeable to everybody?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

It should be “derelict and abandoned vessels”, DAVs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

To me, it's abandoned and derelict vessels.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

It's derelict and abandoned vessels, DAVs. It's easier for an acronym.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

DAVs...I have no problem with that personally, and it looks like we have agreement around the table.

Does the committee agree that the chair, clerk and analysts be authorized to make—

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Are we supposed to be dealing with a draft report in public?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

It's fine. We're not actually going to be making changes to it here—that's why. Normally I would not, but given that there's agreement....

The motion that we have here is, will the committee vote in favour that the chair, clerk and analysts be authorized to make such grammatical and editorial changes as may be necessary without changing the substance of the report?