Fisheries Committee on Feb. 8th, 2024

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

No, we can't get it done in one meeting. We still have the invite to the minister and officials. I think it's one meeting with the three enforcement agencies and another meeting with the minister and officials. If the minister comes to that, that's great. If she can't, that's up to her schedule. It's an invitation, anyway.

It's two meetings, where we were before the break.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mel Arnold]

Mr. Morrissey.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Chair, that would be an amendment to the motion, because the motion we reverted to had no reference to the number of meetings.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

You guys wanted to formalize it. I was more open and flexible, but that's okay.

I can't amend my own motion.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mel Arnold]

Would you like to move that motion, Mr. Morrissey?

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Yes, thank you.

I would move an amendment to the original motion: “begin the study at its next scheduled meeting for one meeting”.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

You already know my views on that. I think that's diminishing the issue.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mel Arnold]

Ms. Barron.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

If we go ahead with inserting “one meeting”, what does that mean if the committee decides more meetings are required? Can we make a decision as committee members to add additional meetings after that time?

That's just for some clarification.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mel Arnold]

Yes, committees are masters of their own destiny.

Mr. Perkins, did you have your hand up?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I was saying that, obviously, I oppose this.

You're asking to have CBSA, RCMP, C and P, the minister and officials all in one meeting. I think that's ridiculous. It's, quite frankly, an insult to the issue we're doing. To not spend the time we need with the three enforcement agencies and then have a discussion with the minister and officials is an insult to anyone who cares about the fishery.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mel Arnold]

Are you suggesting a subamendment to the amendment?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I'd rather just vote the amendment down.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mel Arnold]

That's your prerogative.

Mr. Hanley.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Before we go to the question.... Maybe it's from our side or the other side. Is that the intent? Would we invite all of those people for one meeting? I guess we prioritize a witness list for one meeting.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mel Arnold]

I believe all of those agencies are listed in the motion.

Ms. Barron.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of thoughts.

First of all, I want to get clarification, before we go to a vote, on the last few words Mr. Perkins said, because I didn't hear the last few words that were said there.

The other thing is this. We have heard from CBSA officers throughout our study of IUU, as Mr. Cormier mentioned. We have already heard a lot about what's happening with the elver fishery and the problems. Now, not to diminish the importance of hearing about this and getting the clarity we need, but I feel that, if we take into consideration the work that's already been done, putting together one meeting would offer us an opportunity to see what's happening and then decide whether adding more meetings is the most appropriate step forward. This is a request that's been put forward due to an emergent issue. I think that's a good way for us to move forward: adapt to the request and get this issue on the table, but don't put in so many meetings.

I can think of so many examples of studies we put forward where there were too many meetings attached. I wish that we had put in fewer, and then added on after the fact, once we knew. I'd rather go that route and see us add meetings, if necessary, once we hear from the witnesses. We can add that to the information we've already received, as well.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mel Arnold]

Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

The way the motion will be worded with this amendment is that you would have all these witnesses in one meeting. That's the way it works. They're invited to one meeting.

It's not an add-on. It's all one meeting. It's to have the CBSA, the RCMP, C and P, the minister and the officials all in one meeting. If you support the one-meeting amendment, that's the way it will be. It is standard practice.... We are not coming up with a long list of other witnesses. Lord knows, there are a lot of other witnesses who could come. Because I have asked a couple of questions over the last two months when officials have been here on other issues, it is not a study on the specific issue and crisis for us.

It is a fairly standard practice that the minister and officials appear on a study, no matter how long or short, on their own, away from other officials. We're talking about separating the policing forces on this from the bureaucratic, political and administrative forces; we're talking about separating them into two meetings.

I don't think that's an onerous task between now and the end of February on a crisis that is going to see more violence, more people assaulted and perhaps even the unthinkable, given the armaments that are on these rivers—people with firearms on almost every river of Nova Scotia on people's private property. It is not an onerous thing to ask for two two-hour meetings, separating the policing arm of this from the administrative arm. It's a fairly standard practice.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mel Arnold]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

Ms. Barron.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I'll be quick.

I do appreciate the point around the fact that, as the motion is written, it will result in many people all being in one meeting. I do question how that will work out and if that's even possible.

I just want to acknowledge that I appreciate that additional point, and I think that's shifting my mind on the best steps forward.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mel Arnold]

Thank you.

I see no further hands raised, so I will call the question.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

What's the question?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Mel Arnold]

It's on Mr. Morrissey's amendment that the study be for one meeting.

We have a rare tie. In that case, the chair will cast a vote. I vote nay.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're now on the main motion.

Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

The main motion does not prescribe the number of meetings, so somebody should move the number of meetings to be added as an amendment.