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.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
—and whoever. On March 21, it would be one hour with the minister, and the second hour would be the CBSA and the RCMP.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
5:50 p.m.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
To clarify, what you're suggesting is that it's the same number of meetings, but now the minister is not coming.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
The minister wouldn't be here on March 19; she would be here on March 21 for one hour.
5:50 p.m.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
I'm trying to figure out exactly what the amendment is, because isn't that what we had agreed to in the beginning?
In the beginning, we talked about the law enforcement people and whistle-blowers coming for the first meeting. For the second meeting, we talked about the minister and supplementary estimates C. The difference is that the entire two meetings are taking up one group instead of having two groups. Is that the difference? Can somebody clarify the difference, please?
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I think, if I understand you correctly, the first meeting on the 19th would be for two hours with the whistle-blowers, and the meeting on the 21st would be one hour with the law enforcement agencies—
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
—and one hour with the minister on estimates.
I appreciate the compromise you're trying to propose.
I go back to.... I don't know if I'm allowed to say this, because he's in the chair, but I go back to MP Arnold's statement at the last meeting about the challenge we've had in getting the minister to appear here on issues. We've issued a number of invitations to her, and she's never available.
We know that if she's available on the 21st for one hour, she can be available on the 21st for two hours to deal with at least two of the three or four things for which we've asked her to appear and for which she has not yet appeared. I think that's not a lot. She's been minister since the summer and she's been here only once, for one hour, which I don't think is enough for ministerial accountability to Parliament.
I would still prefer to do the whistle-blowers for an hour, the law enforcement folks for an hour, and then have two hours with the minister in the second meeting , one hour on elvers and one hour on estimates.
That's my....
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Just as a clarification, she has been minister for less than a year and has appeared here once. The last minister, in the former government, appeared twice over her whole term, which—
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
February 29th, 2024 / 5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
No. The minister is available. Every minister, of the six we've had, has been before this committee multiple times. I agree that the minister should be here. The minister would be available to come in on supplementary estimates. Actually, when she's here, there's nothing stopping anybody from questioning her on the items that are there.
The point that I find irritating, quite frankly, is the idea that she isn't available. She's been here, and she's been minister for less than a year. Again, I'll confirm this: In the former government, before us, the minister, throughout her whole term, was before the committee twice over years and years.
Thank you, Chair.
5:50 p.m.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you.
Thank you for clarifying. When I heard that the minister was coming, I thought it meant the minister was coming to talk about elvers. That's where my confusion was coming from.
I will, of course, go with the will of the mover of the motion; however, I want to reiterate that I also agree that it would be preferable to have the minister here to be able to talk about this issue.
My observation, as a newer member of Parliament, is that I am seeing ministers talk about issues at other committees more regularly than what we are seeing at this committee. That's my lens of comparison right now. I feel that the minister should be here talking about this important issue and the issues that we brought forward earlier.
I would prefer to see the meetings set up in the way that's been proposed by the mover of the motion.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I could propose a compromise, if you like. The elver hour could be split between elvers and redfish, if you like, and then we could do estimates in the second hour.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
