Evidence of meeting #2 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.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
However, it has not been sent to the members. Is that correct?
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Mr. Chair, what was recorded as passed on division? Could you explain that to the committee?
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
It was the original subamendment by Mr. Arnold, but then there was some question as to what was actually in that subamendment. I didn't write it down. I listened to it, but I can't tell you word for word what Mr. Arnold read out as his subamendment. I can't tell you if it's identical to what he just read out now, but it did pass on division as it was provided.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Has that been dealt with? It was recorded as agreed to on division. That's the other clarification. I'm not sure how the clerk was referencing “on division”, because there were members on the government side who voted in favour of Mr. Arnold's subamendment.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
The “on division” part was because I saw a number of thumbs-up and other people didn't have anything. That's why I said “on division”.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Just for clarity, I did state that I would prefer four hours but two hours would suffice, and nobody corrected me on that, either. I understood that “two hours” was in the original motion by Mr. Perkins, and it was followed through by me and Mr. Arnold. I believe that was the intent of what was voted on. If the text needs to clarify that, then it does, but I think it was pretty clear that we wanted two hours.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Zimmer.
Mr. Arnold, have you received the text of the original amendment?
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
It just came in, Mr. Chair, and I'm working on some edits so that I can send them back to the clerk.
January 18th, 2022 / 11:25 a.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, while we're waiting for that, I wonder if I could just clarify what I think we're voting for if we vote for both the amendment and the subamendment.
In trying to follow the conversation so far, we're talking about having the minister and the officials appear in the first week of February for a two-hour meeting to discuss the mandate, plus the supplementary estimates (C), plus anything else related to her department. Is that the summation of everything that's been proposed?
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Yes, if we agree to the subamendment, the amendment and the actual amended motion, that's basically what we're trying to arrive at.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Yes, I do. I need a bit of clarification as well. When are the supplementary estimates (C) due to be available? I'm not sure they would actually be available to the minister by the first week of February.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
That would depend on when they get tabled in the House, I guess: whether they get tabled before we do the study on this particular motion or afterwards. If they're not tabled, they won't be up for discussion.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
If they're not tabled at that point and they're tabled subsequently, would this mean that the minister would be required to come back to committee another time?
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
The subamendment didn't say two dates. It said “in the first week of February”.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I can't support the first week of February. That's too soon. We may as well get it all done at once.
