Evidence of meeting #97 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
We want to start within five days, but she doesn't have to be here within five days. We can start with the other witnesses. She can come at the end.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I know it's sort of traditional that ministers appear first, but it's not a requirement. In my view, it's fine if the minister comes at the end.
We have two sitting weeks left in February. We have next week, then a week's break, then another week when we come back that is partially in February, I think.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
No, next Friday, we begin two weeks of constituency break. I'm pretty sure.
Is there only one?
4 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Within the time frame of those sitting weeks, I'm sure the minister can find time to be here. We're just inviting her.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I'm fine with the rest of it, especially the grammatical change.
4 p.m.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to clarify, I was adding the “deputy” part only because I thought there was unanimous consent that this was the best path forward. I'm okay either way—whichever is easiest.
The beginning part is the part I want to see the addition to, but whether it's the minister or deputy minister coming to the meeting, I am fine either way. If it's the preference of the mover of the motion to keep “minister”, I would support that and ask that we add the remainder I spoke about.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Mel Arnold
I'm not sure whether the clerk has an accurate idea of what was proposed.
Can Ms. Barron provide it? Has it been circulated?
Pardon me.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Mr. Chair, it would be great if it could be circulated.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Through the chair, if we have our first meeting next Tuesday, it would have to be with the deputy minister, because the minister would not be available.
I want Mr. Perkins to give us a sense as to how many meetings, in fact, we will need to deal with this. Given the time sensitivity he indicated—things are already starting to happen—we would want some resolution proposed to the minister sooner rather than later.
What would you see as the number of meetings necessary to deal with this?
4 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Obviously, that depends, Mr. Chair, on the availability of witnesses and resources.
I see three different ways to go at this, and I am prepared to see whether the clerk can figure it out.
One, our meetings start in our normal meeting spot next week, so the two meetings next week would be on this issue. Based on the number of witnesses, we would make a determination about whether we need a third one for officials. We'll obviously need a third one, or some portion of a third one, for the minister after the break week. We could probably get all of those done in those areas. I'm not sure, with the addition MP Barron is making, how many witnesses she envisages beyond the ones I've listed, but it would add to that. My original thinking was that, with the officials and the minister, we could probably get it done in three normal meetings.
Two, when you look at the calendar for all committees, there are some slots available. Whether or not we want to add a meeting during the week.... I know that, on another committee I'm on, we've done that. We've chosen to use one of those additional slots.
Three, on another committee I'm on, we've also chosen to say that, depending on resource availability, we'll add a third hour to the regular meetings we already have scheduled for other issues.
I am in the hands of the committee on that. How many meetings it takes depends on which method you use. I think that if you do full two-hour meetings, with the minister it's probably three meetings.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Thank you, Chair.
We don't need extensive meetings to regurgitate what occurred. We know what occurred. Nobody's disputing that.
I, as a committee member, want to hear from those responsible for the management of this fishery. They can tell this committee what they're putting in place to prevent a repeat of that this coming year. Nobody can guarantee immunity from violence. It happens.
One meeting, in my opinion, is adequate to have them explain to the committee what steps are being put in place. We can spend days going back and bringing people in.
We know. Nobody is disputing what occurred, and what occurred is unacceptable. I do not agree with having multiple meetings with this urgency. The people fundamentally responsible are in DFO protection and enforcement, the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency.
They get involved only when somebody illegally catches them and tries to get them out of the country. The issue is stopping the illegal activity and the violence from occurring. The CBSA has no jurisdiction there.
If the intent of the motion—and I agree with the intent—is to find this out from the two federal government agencies that have the responsibility for law and order and protection of the resource, we have them in the RCMP and DFO. That's where my interest is. I know the CBSA is responsible for ensuring that illegal products do not cross the border, but it shouldn't be illegal to get to the border.
That falls, Mr. Chair, under the RCMP and Fisheries and Oceans. I do not want to dilute and confuse the serious situation that may be about to repeat itself in 2024. That's why I want to hear specifically from the most senior people within the operational side of these two ministries about what they are putting in place this coming year to ensure that what happened last year does not repeat itself.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Mel Arnold
As I understand it, there's nothing in the original motion or the amendment that determines the number of meetings yet, so this would be a further amendment. We have an amendment on the floor that we're waiting to have circulated. Before we can amend it to include how many meetings we'll have, we have to deal with the current amendment.
I saw Mr. Kelloway online first, and then Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Kelloway.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Morrissey brought up what I was going to bring up about the timeline for the meetings and bringing people around the table at the same time as senior officials to discuss a variety of perspectives. Fundamentally, there are a couple of perspectives. One is safety, security and enforcement, and the other is plans moving forward.
I'm with Mr. Morrissey on looking at this in a meeting and making sure we have the absolute right people at the table for that meeting. Mr. Perkins talked quite eloquently about the experiences he's had as an MP and as a citizen in the South Shore, what his constituents and other people who fish elvers faced and what happened last year. If we can bring everyone together....
My experience with this committee is not as long as most of yours. Some of you have been here on the fisheries committee since 2015, but I find it's not necessarily about quantity; it's about quality. We can bring people in at the same time with the clear directives and the focus of the motion and look at that one meeting.
The letter will come for recommendations, by what I read, through you, Chair, to Mr. Perkins. There will be a letter to the minister with our recommendations. I think that is more than doable.
Everybody will be ready with their questions and sub-questions. We need to have the right people around the table. I think, for the most part, it's a good selection of people in the motion.
Thank you.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
February 8th, 2024 / 4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I do take the point, Mr. Chair, that the inclusion of the CBSA in this discussion is necessary sooner or later. The reason I say that is that the CBSA, as has been pointed out, would be the ones who would be inspecting shipments heading out of the country, and we've heard in testimony in our IUU study that it's pretty easy to conceal elvers inside other stuff.
I would suggest, though, if we haven't done a deep enough dive into that aspect of it, that we add a meeting to the IUU study and burrow right into that one, because I think that's the other half of it. If we cut off the market, all of a sudden there's really no rationale for people to be out fishing for something they can't sell and there's no market for.
I think that piece of it has to be covered off, but the issue at hand is enforcing the laws we have right now, given that the shipping issues and CBSA-related issues are not going to be dealt with in time to prevent the drive for a fishery this year, especially an illegal one with that kind of value attached to it. We needn't dilute the focus by calling in the CBSA at this point, but I would suggest that we could add a meeting to the IUU study, which isn't really complete yet, to deal with that aspect of it.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Thank you, everyone, for your general support for the motion. I really appreciate it.
Maybe I could start with Mr. Hardie's last point. I believe that the IUU study is finished. We're supposed to do drafting instructions today; that's on the agenda.
To the main issue, there's no question in my mind that the thing of primary concern is enforcement on the rivers, and I think we're all agreed on enforcement. That involves DFO C and P, and, if called in, the RCMP to back them up on the river, but also the RCMP enforcing trespassing laws. That's the on-river portion.
We have had a bit of testimony already in some of my questions in the IUU study, and the deputy minister already answered and said that there is a coordination committee on the planning for the elver stuff that involves all three agencies, including the CBSA. Unofficially, I'm told by the elver licence-holders that they've been told they're shifting resources away from river enforcement towards the purchasing part of this, the land-based purchasing, where it's being purchased, and the airports and CBSA enforcement.
We need to have CBSA here in order to ask whether that's really what they're doing, because I think that's a problem. It's obviously safer, but it's like whack-a-mole on this thing, because there are way more people doing this than there are enforcement officers. I think that's the whole picture.
I think it's hard to do that along with the minister, in one meeting. That would be one hour for one and one hour for another, which I do not think would do enough justice to the depth of the discussion. To me, it would have to be at least one meeting, if it were a two-hour meeting, with C and P, RCMP and CBSA together, if they're working together on this. Then, at least on the second one, it would be another one with the minister and officials. Whether that's in two two-hour meetings or added on as bits and pieces to a couple of other meetings, we could leave to the clerk to sort out.