Evidence of meeting #81 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was may.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Could you clarify? You mentioned that CPC-2 and CPC-3 would be conflicting.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
Legislative Clerk
CPC-2 would essentially delete the definition of “ongoing”, from lines 24 on page 2 to line 3 on page 3, but CPC-3 would amend lines that are in that definition. If we delete the definition of “ongoing”, and insert a new definition, then CPC-3 doesn't have anything it would amend anymore because those lines would be gone. There's a line conflict.
10 a.m.
Liberal
10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
Folks, we have a two-minute suspension. Let's hope this two minutes is quicker than the last one.
Okay, let's pick up where we left off on CPC-2. I explained the consequences, which everybody understands.
Mr. Doherty.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
We were going to explain CPC-2 and CPC-3. Is that correct?
10 a.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Right, CPC-2 and CPC-3, because they're both the same, correct? That's what we were saying.
10 a.m.
Liberal
10 a.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Right. We will withdraw CPC-5.
Actually, let's talk about CPC-2 first.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Chair, again we'll go back to the comments we made earlier. Time and again we had testimony from witnesses, that perhaps there were seasonal activities that may not fall within one year but could fall within three or five years in fisheries, for quotas and what have you. Witnesses said that if it's a year prior, what if they weren't fishing the year prior but had been fishing two years previously?
We would like to ensure that by amending lines 29 and 34, or putting in the word “eligible” instead of “ongoing”, that would help us with some of the testimony we heard from witnesses.
10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
You just explained that you're not asking for a subamendment, obviously.
Let's vote on CPC-2. Shall amendment CPC-2 carry?
All those in favour, please raise your hand. All those opposed.
The amendment is negatived, so CPC-5 is negatived as well.
10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Scott Simms
One moment, Mr. Arnold, until I get this straight. Now we're on CPC-3. Take amendments CPC-2 and CPC-5 from your package. They're dispensed with.
Mr. Arnold.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
I believe you said that if CPC-2 passed, it would negate CPC-5. CPC-2 did not pass, so CPC-5 should still be eligible.
