Evidence of meeting #101 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was quota.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:40 p.m.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Chair.
There are a few things. I am just noticing that this version is updated again. We should have put version 2.0, version 4.0 and so on, on these motions, because I'm starting to get confused now. I notice there's an addition in the whistle-blower section. It's not on the last version that was given to me that I have in front of me on paper. There's a piece that—
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
It was on the one that was circulated by the clerk. It's always been there.
5:40 p.m.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
I'm not seeing it on the version that was given to me.
Regardless, we'll have to consider that one point, because that's the first time—
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
We had that conversation beforehand too, about the whistle-blowers appearing—
5:40 p.m.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Yes. I'm sorry.
Through the Chair, if I could clarify, I can see where the miscommunication is happening now. It's not the point around the whistle-blowers; it's the addition to the whistle-blower point. It's just that the wording is different.
5:40 p.m.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
It's not the point itself. Thank you, Chair, for allowing us to sort out what we're talking about there. It's just that there was some different wording added to the point.
I would like to clarify what's being asked here. My understanding was that the original emergency motion on this issue to have two meetings, which we agreed to as a committee. My understanding was that the intention here was to have the meeting that's already been agreed upon, with the first half for law enforcement and the second half for whistle-blowers.
With that caveat, I want to point out that if we're able to get the minister here, and I would like to highlight that would be great to see the minister here.... We're not seeing the minister coming to committees as much as I would like. If we can get the minister here to talk about this important issue, I would most definitely support an addition of another hour. Ideally, as the minister has already been requested to come for the supplementary estimates, it would be great to have the minister here for the whole meeting, instead of just one hour for the supplementary estimates.
I just want to clarify, because the mover of the motion said “two meetings”. Is it in fact two meetings that are being asked for? What does that look like? The wording of the motion itself is very broad. It just says to “prioritize the future regularly scheduled meetings”. I feel that we need to clearly identify what we are agreeing to with that wording.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Sure. Those are good points.
The reasonable idea—the original motion, which this motion repeats—assumed that the minister would come with officials. She didn't. We just had officials. That's how that would have been off in one section. Unfortunately, that didn't happen. What we ended up with was just officials.
Normally, we would have had the minister and officials for an hour, and then officials. That would have been the normal case. Then, on the plan, the second meeting would have been the law enforcement agencies that were requested. That's not the way it worked out.
The idea is that of the two meetings in March, in the first one, the first hour would be on what I would call law enforcement issues—CFIA, RCMP and CBSA. I haven't put C and P in there because they were here already with the departmental officials. The second hour of that meeting would be with the whistle-blowers. Then the second meeting would be with the minister. Given that we've had three or four requests in for the minister, we could do an hour on elvers and then the second hour on the estimates, which I think we need to do as well, and knock it off.
That would be the intent. I wrote it this way because sometimes it provides the clerk with a little more flexibility in scheduling. You may want more precision, but that's the thinking behind it.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
The old saying is, “I'm just a country lawyer,” but I'm not even a lawyer—I'm just from the country.
5:45 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
When I'm reading this, I'm just a little.... A bit more clarity would be good, MP Perkins. Walk through this again with me. Tell me about March 19.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
March 19 would be the first meeting after we come back. The first hour would be the RCMP, the Canada Border Services Agency and the CFIA. The second hour would be with the whistle-blowers.
Then on March 21, the second meeting would be two hours with the minister, with one hour on elvers and one hour on estimates.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Then we have two meetings, though. This will be the second meeting on March 19. Is that correct?
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
That will be the second meeting, but the intent with the original motion was that the minister would be here with officials, which she wasn't. It was said at the time that she would come another time because she couldn't be there on the date that officials were here. I'm just following up on the commitment that she would come to discuss elvers at another time, even though we had only allocated that.
We have the time on March 21 to do both. She should appear on estimates before they have to be reported back to the House.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Is it possible to get a two-minute suspension to have a conversation?
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Mel Arnold
We can, if we can keep it short. We have been postponing drafting instructions.
We'll take a very short recess.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Mel Arnold
We will resume.
Is there any further discussion?
Go ahead, Mr. Kelloway.
February 29th, 2024 / 5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
What we would propose as an amendment to Mr. Perkins' motion, with respect to March 19, is that the whistle-blowers and other folks would come, other than the minister. The minister would be here for one hour on March 21, and the RCMP and the CBSA in the second hour.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Can you go over that again? What's in the first meeting?
5:50 p.m.
Liberal