Evidence of meeting #92 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 dfo.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, we had an amendment moved to a motion. Are we now separating that amendment? The amendment is currently on the floor. It has to be either withdrawn or voted on. Isn't that correct?
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Mel Arnold
I asked and there was no opposition around the room to dealing with just the changes to the first paragraph.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Are we going to vote on the changes to the first paragraph of the amendment?
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Mel Arnold
We are having a discussion on adding the words “on the west coast” and changing the word “eliminate” to “minimize”.
Mr. Hardie.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I think with the first one, you could probably just use a show of hands. The second one, which is to replace “eliminate” with “minimize”, might take a vote. Then the third one could be a show of hands issue again.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was going to propose the efficiency of just moving forward. I think everybody is speaking in support of the west coast.
Through you, Mr. Chair, it's up to you to decide. I would like us to move on, because we all need to move on to the next thing, and clearly there's not going to be time to make any big decisions today.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Mel Arnold
Is everyone in agreement that “on the west coast” be accepted as an amendment?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we'll go to the word change, from “eliminate” to “minimize”.
I have Mr. Perkins.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
I actually like this amendment, but I'm open to hearing why it's the word “eliminate”, because I'm not sure that in the ocean we can totally eliminate anything. I think what we can do is minimize harms in managing it as much as possible. As much as I'd like to eliminate the harms, I'm not sure that, while it may be laudable, it's ever achievable.
1 p.m.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Can I ask, for clarification, that the mover of the motion read the word “eliminate” into the context of the sentence to ensure we're all talking about the same thing? I imagined the word “eliminate” in a different context from what's being proposed, and I want to make sure I'm fully aware.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Mel Arnold
Go ahead, Mr. Hardie. Then we're going to have to do the hard stop. It's one o'clock.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Yes.
We're giving the agriculture industry the opportunity to tell us what steps they would take to “eliminate” all harms to wild fish stocks of their operations. I would take it as a friendly amendment to replace the word “eliminate” with “minimize”. To Mr. Perkins' point, it would be almost entirely impossible to totally eliminate all harms, even from onshore operations.
1 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Mel Arnold
I'm seeing multiple hands up for debate on this one, but we are up against a one o'clock timeline. I think we're going to have to come back to this at the next meeting. Is there a motion to adjourn?
1 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.