Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague's comments are genuine. I need to keep asking this question because I have not yet received a coherent answer from the Liberals or the NDP.
I want to be very clear on what he thinks is the way forward. Some have given the impression that we pass this hoist amendment, do some consultation, take the bill from whoever has it at the moment, make some changes, and when they are not looking maybe put it back in a changed form. That is not the way it works.
Let me quote from the parliamentary Compendium, which says:
The adoption of a hoist amendment is tantamount to defeating the bill by postponing its consideration. Consequently, the bill disappears from the Order Paper and cannot be introduced again, even after the postponement period has elapsed.
First, I would like him to comment further on the specific steps forward. What does he think is the best way forward? If we pass the hoist amendment, what are the next steps after that?
Second, for over 100 years the normal process was that we did our best with a bill. We brought it before Parliament, debated it at second reading, and sent it to committee where it is debated and has some changes made.
The principle of the bill states:
The purpose of this Act is to provide for the sustainable development of Canada’s seacoast and inland fisheries, through the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat and the proper management and control of fisheries.
I would like to know if he disagrees with that principle and why we cannot build on that in committee.