Fisheries Committee on Oct. 26th, 2026

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mel Arnold]

Thank you, Mr. Earle.

We'll now move to Mr. Small for five minutes, please.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Snyder, when you look at the coastal area of Atlantic Canada, from the northern tip of Labrador to all of the Labrador coast, down to the island of Newfoundland, the north shore and lower north shore of Quebec, Gaspésie, all of the coast of New Brunswick, the coast of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and right down to the border of the Gulf of Maine, it's quite a massive area for the Atlantic salmon population.

In British Columbia, you have a $1.3-billion sports fishing industry. When you look at the size of the industry that you've fostered with your hatcheries, basically, and you look at what's happening on the Atlantic coast, do you ever think about why the Atlantic salmon is such a disaster and Pacific salmon, basically, have proliferated?

[Dustin Snyder]

Yes, I do wonder about that, for sure.

Again, reading up on some of this stuff before I came, I will admit that I was oblivious that there was such a large difference between how Pacific salmon and Atlantic salmon are treated and the industry that has spawned from that.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

In Newfoundland and Labrador alone, the rivers support 75% of the current Atlantic salmon population of Canada. That's in Newfoundland and Labrador alone. How many hatcheries do you think we have? How many salmon enhancement programs do you think we have in that province?

[Dustin Snyder]

Something tells me not very many.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

How about that? We have zero.

We keep hearing the genetics argument again and again and again. It's basically coming from ENGOs that are funded stateside, so foreign interference, basically, in the recovery of Atlantic salmon. What do you make of that?

[Dustin Snyder]

I think that is ridiculous.

Again, it's the genetic argument. If we have to pick genetics or extinction, I think that we should avoid extinction at all costs. Those fish need to be preserved, and we can worry about the genetics down the road.

The folks who are fighting that, if they are foreign, need to not have a seat at the table.

That's my two cents.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Snyder.

Right now, Mr. Chair, I want to shift gears, and I want to talk about another issue that we have. It's DFO-related.

Once upon a time, the DFO used to run fisheries. We see that DFO is now more concerned with a “department of oceans”. What happened to fisheries, Mr. Chair?

Given that DFO has become more concerned with the ocean side of their department, we're having concerns expressed to us from stakeholders that it's all about oceans and not about fisheries anymore. Given the fact that we've had these concerns brought to us by industry stakeholders, I'm going to move this motion, Mr. Chair:

That, given the recent appointment of Canada’s ocean envoy and chair of the 12th Our Ocean Conference, and the Government of Canada’s recently announced $1.2-billion investment in ocean protection, the committee invite Canada’s ocean envoy to appear for no fewer than two hours, at the earliest opportunity, but no later than Friday, November 27, 2026, to discuss the envoy’s mandate, priorities and plans to advance Canada’s ocean conservation and fisheries interests, including preparations for the 2027 Our Ocean Conference, the government’s financial commitments, and the anticipated costs associated with hosting the conference; and that the ocean envoy be requested to provide the committee with a copy of the formal mandate, any associated terms of reference and a breakdown of the anticipated costs of hosting the conference prior to the appearance.

Mr. Chair, this is very serious stuff. To me, this is all about the influence of foreign-funded ENGOs, and we'd like to know how that $1.2 billion is going to work to either support the fishing industry or to destroy livelihoods within the industry.

Is the government putting $1.2 billion into a fund that the Prime Minister's wife is going to administer, to shut down fisheries, create more marine protected areas and create more regulations in an ocean that's governed by more than a dozen acts of Parliament to keep it safe and protected?

Mr. Chair, thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Small.

The motion has been moved, and the clerk has circulated it to everyone to make sure everyone has a copy of it. In an email, the notice of motion was served appropriately a few days ago.

I have seen hands going up for Mr. Brassard, Mr. Deschênes-Thériault, Mr. Connors and Mr. Cormier.

Mr. Brassard.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Small for moving what I believe to be a very important motion, a motion that speaks to the issue of accountability, transparency and oversight, the very things that a parliamentary democracy and a democracy, in general, should be concerned about.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to bring you back to this position and when it was created. It was created on September 16, 2026. It was announced that the Prime Minister's wife, Diana Fox Carney, was going to be Canada's ocean envoy and the chair of the 2027 Our Ocean Conference. It's an unpaid and voluntary position.

This, in and of itself, creates a lot of questions, Mr. Chair. One of those is, is she, in fact, a designated public office holder who subscribes to the same regime as the Conflict of Interest Act, Lobbying Act and other things? It's important to understand that, especially on this committee, a committee that's charged with the responsibility for Fisheries and Oceans. It also means that she's not going to receive a personal salary. We love the benevolence and we love the fact that an employee, or a designated employee, a volunteer in this case, is not accepting a salary, but what does it mean in terms of all of these oversight regimes that are already in place?

There's not, also, an itemized budget that has been put forward in terms of operational expenses, travel expenses, office and support staff. I think it's incumbent upon this committee to find that out. This is a $1.2-billion announcement, Mr. Chair. It was announced by the federal government to strengthen marine safety, coast guard monitoring, whale protection, indigenous partnerships and enforcement tools, all the details of which are not available. These are many of the things that are currently being done by a cross-section of various departments.

What does this actually mean? What does this ocean envoy actually mean to the taxpayers of this country? There's $82 million that's been funded over five years, pledged for global observation and monitoring initiatives such as OceanEye. This committee is charged with this responsibility, and I think at a minimum, the new ocean envoy should come in, given the fact that there's $1.2 billion and several other millions of dollars for the Our Ocean Conference that she has been given access to. From a responsibility standpoint, it should come to this committee.

There are other concerns as well, that the committee can certainly question as this motion is adopted. It is an unpaid position, as I mentioned earlier, but how does that align, Mr. Chair, with government organizations, NGOs, investors, stakeholders, and the potential that there is an alignment of public policy intersecting with personal interests, for example? That would be a concern that could be brought up.

Ms. Fox Carney is also a recognized climate policy adviser. She's worked with investment and sustainability organizations, so how does this position allow informal influence over those policy discussions? I think that's something, particularly as it relates to stakeholder engagement. There are some questions that need to be asked with respect to this. How will the meetings, travel, and stakeholder consultations be disclosed? What safeguards exist regarding organizations with which she previously had been affiliated? The challenge is less about direct financial benefit and more about influence, access and network advantages.

There is a case where you might blur public and private roles in this case as well, Mr. Chair. How is the ocean envoy going to participate in international engagement and represent Canadian priorities on the global stage? When the Prime Minister's spouse is granted an official, diplomatic-style role, it becomes difficult at that point to distinguish between personal influence and institutional authority, so this committee can, if it's desired, determine how that distinction is going to be made.

There are other concerns as well. There's a lack of traditional accountability mechanisms. Volunteer appointees, as I mentioned earlier, frequently operate outside some of the accountability structures that govern ministers, public servants and Governor in Council appointments. This was a ministerial appointment, so is she subject to the same regime from a conflict of interest standpoint and lobbying standpoint, which is critical as well?

There may be some other questions that arise as well, like reporting requirements, mandate letters—which Mr. Small has already referred to—performance evaluation, disclosure obligations and parliamentary oversight.

What does this mean?

This is where the committee can get to the bottom of this, in terms of that appointment, in addition to all of the other roles that, as I said earlier, various departments play.

This mandate specifically links ocean conservation to climate action and economic resilience. This integrates into the envoy...active public.... This puts her into active public policy debates that have major implications for, as examples, fisheries, marine transportation, energy development, offshore resource projects, carbon markets—carbon markets, I repeat that again—and sustainable finance initiatives.

Because both Mark Carney and Diana Fox Carney are closely associated with international climate finance initiatives, opponents may raise concerns. We may raise these concerns, if she is to appear, that the policy advice that she gives could be shaped by a particular ideological or policy perspective, rather than by stakeholder consultation.

Those are very serious questions that need to be asked of this new oceans envoy, in addition to what her overall role is. Taxpayer dollars are being initiated—in this case, $1.2 billion—and millions more for an ocean conference. The least this new ocean envoy can do is to appear before a committee that's responsible for fisheries and oceans. She should tell us what her role, mandate, goals and observations are; what she's going to do in this role; and how that money is going to be accounted for to Canadian taxpayers as well, given the fact that this cross-section of support is already there among various department officials.

Mr. Chair, I would encourage this committee to have Ms. Fox Carney come before it to explain and answer questions about her new role. Canadians deserve transparency, accountability and oversight. What better committee to do that on—other than the committee that I chair, which is ethics—than this committee, which is responsible for oceans, marine waterways and conservation as well?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mel Arnold]

Thank you, Mr. Brassard.

Next, we have Mr. Deschênes-Thériault on the speaking list.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There's no question that ocean conservation and Canada's fisheries interests are important matters. However, today we're also discussing an important issue, namely Atlantic salmon populations. We have before us witnesses from different regions of the country. In their questions, my opposition colleagues have noted that some witnesses travelled a considerable distance to appear before us today. I'm interested in hearing what they have to say about the matter currently before the committee.

Therefore, Mr. Chair, I move that the debate now be adjourned.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mel Arnold]

It's not debatable, so we'll go to a vote. I'll ask the clerk to conduct the vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)

Order.

We'll return to our witness list now. We have five minutes remaining.

Mr. Cormier, you have five minutes with the witnesses.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's unfortunate that we have to go through this with our witnesses, especially since the Conservative member said, just a moment ago, that you guys travel far and that we welcome you on this important topic. Let's get back at it.

Ms. Epworth, I want to go back to the program, the hatchery and the science you're doing. You're saying that, in your area, you're taking them small, growing them up and putting them back in the river. Is that right?

[Wendy Epworth]

Yes, that's correct. We take wild juveniles from the project rivers and collect them. We transport them to our dedicated marine grow-out site, raise them to maturity and then bring them back to the project rivers to spawn.

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

Just so people around the table understand, what is the difference between this and the CAST program, if you are familiar with that program, in the Miramichi area a couple of years ago?

[Wendy Epworth]

The only difference that I'm aware of is that the juveniles were going to be raised to maturity in a freshwater environment.

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

That being said, because I think you're a director of science or you have a background in science, do you think that the way CAST wanted to do the restocking, taking some of those small salmon, growing them in a freshwater tank, as you just said, and putting them back in the river will have an impact on the genetics of salmon?

[Wendy Epworth]

I can't speak to the epigenetic effects of the different environments. I do think that what is important here is to get adults on the spawning grounds, because releasing adults not only maintains that connection with the community but also improves the productivity of the habitat as opposed to just releasing juveniles. I think there are some advantages to those adult releases. Whether those adults are raised in a marine environment or a freshwater environment, provided they're a high-quality adult, I think it's ultimately important to get the adults back on the spawning grounds.

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

If you were a DFO science director of the program, would you have said yes to putting those salmon back in the river?

[Wendy Epworth]

Yes, I would have.

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

As I said, I missed your opening statement. In terms of the numbers that are returning.... I'm sorry again. What's the name of the river?

[Wendy Epworth]

We are working in the Petitcodiac River, the two rivers in Fundy National Park—the Upper Salmon and Point Wolfe—and now the Big Salmon River.

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

Are there some numbers you would be able to provide at a later date in terms of salmon returning in some of those rivers? Is that something that would be possible?

[Wendy Epworth]

Yes. The best data that's been collected for the program comes out of the Upper Salmon River, and there are papers published on those return numbers.