FOPO Committee Meeting

    Colleagues, we're back. We're now in public. We can continue our consideration of the first version of the report on the review of the Fisheries Act.

    As usual, the analysts may ask for clarifications to make sure they understand the requested changes as we review the report.

    I see that Mr. Gunn has his hand up.

    Thank you, Chair.

    I'd like to move that the committee proceed to the consideration of my motion regarding the production order on aquaculture.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Gunn.

    Is there agreement from the committee on that?

    I request a recorded vote.

    Okay, we'll have a recorded division.

    (Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

    The clerk and I are going to keep a speaking list.

    I'm going to start with Mr. Gunn, and then go to Mr. Cormier, who I see has his hand up.

    Mr. Gunn, go ahead.

     Thank you, Chair.

    We obviously brought this production order up last week. We sat here for about 40 minutes while the government filibustered it. This is a super important issue for thousands of workers in my riding and for first nations chiefs who support aquaculture.

    It's not even necessarily a question about the industry itself. It's a question about transparency and about what's going to happen. Thousands of people do not know if they're going to have a job a couple of years from now and if they're going to have an income to pay their rent or their mortgage. Billions of dollars of potential investment are stalled because no one wants to invest in British Columbia.

    At the end of the day, for me, this is about transparency and accountability. It's about asking for a report that the minister admitted to this committee was finished and was sitting on her desk—the minister who promised an answer in the fall, who promised an answer in the winter and who promised an answer in the spring. Here we are at the end of April, and still we have no answer.

    I would welcome the government providing an answer on this issue instead of reading from a report from 16 years ago. The people of this country and the people of my riding deserve a lot better.

    I'd like to proceed to a vote so we can get the documents and see what they have to say. Then we can hopefully advise the department on an appropriate course of action moving forward.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Gunn.

    Next on the speaking list I have Mr. Cormier.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I have a great deal of respect for my colleague Mr. Gunn, and I fully understand the concerns he has just outlined, but what I find a little bit disappointing about all this is that, in my humble opinion, he's trying to undermine years of official consultation and concrete work on aquaculture and wild salmon by requesting documents related to a report that has not yet been finalized or published—and he's likely doing this just to get a few clicks on his social media.

    That's perfectly understandable, but what's disappointing about all this, once again, is that it directly undermines consultations with the industry and with first nations. These consultations have been ongoing for quite some time now.

    For my part, I'd be pleased to read, for you and for those following our work, an excerpt from the draft salmon aquaculture transition plan for British Columbia and from what has been done so far regarding that plan.

    Innovation, as you know, is very important.

    That's what my colleague mentioned earlier.

    I think you can see that this plan, once again, is intended to address some of the concerns my colleague just mentioned earlier.

    I did say $686 million. By the way, I'm also very pleased that the government recently made a similar announcement regarding Atlantic salmon, aimed at restoring that population.

    Of course, as you know, it's probable that some groups might also share my colleague Mr. Gunn's concerns, but in the end, what we want is for all of these groups to be well informed of what's coming up for them.

    I think it's also very important that coastal communities be stakeholders in this plan.

    This is very important, like my colleague Mr. Gunn mentioned.

    I think you can see clearly that the concerns raised earlier by my colleague Mr. Gunn have been taken into account in this transition plan.

    Mr. Chair, I'd like to remind those listening to us and those concerned of what it is we're doing, but I move to adjourn the debate.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Cormier.

    Mr. Cormier moved to adjourn the debate. It's a dilatory motion, so we have to put it to a vote.

    Mr. Chair, the motion is to adjourn debate on the current motion. Is that right?

    That's correct. The motion that was moved was to adjourn debate on the motion of Mr. Gunn, so we'll be voting on that. It's a dilatory motion, so it's not debatable.

    (Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

    The Chair: Mr. Morrissey, go ahead.

    Mr. Chair, I move that we move in camera.

    That's another dilatory motion, so we will be voting on returning in camera.

    Are we using the same line, Mr. Chair, for the in camera meeting?

    We first need to agree on whether we're going to do that.

    Okay. I'm sorry.

    (Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)

    We've agreed to move back in camera.

    To answer Mr. Cormier's question, we will be using the same link that was used for the initial meeting.

    With that, we're going to briefly suspend and then return through the initial link that was sent for the Zoom meeting. We'll resume in probably 10 minutes or so, or maybe less.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]