Environment Committee on Nov. 5th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I've already done it.

(On clause 10—Public consultation)

We have amendment NDP-12.

Ms. Leslie.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

We are amending clause 10, to replace lines 2 and 3 with lines talking about public participation. If we look at the Canada National Parks Act, we see more opportunity for public consultation than in Bill C-40, which is interesting but also problematic.

We'd like to see clause 10 amended to ensure that it's closer to the public consultation standards in the National Parks Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Is there debate on NDP-12?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I'd like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

We're on NDP-13, and we have a ruling on this as well.

Again, the preamble that I read before is similar.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states that since “an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.”

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes potentially new costs related to construction, maintenance, and staffing of an interpretive centre. This would impose a new charge on the public treasury. Therefore, I rule this amendment inadmissible.

We'll go to clause 10, unamended.

(Clause 10 agreed to)

(On clause 11—Agreements)

We have amendment PV-11a.

Mr. Hyer.

[Bruce Hyer, Green, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Chair, this amendment requires that the minister comply with article 2.0 of the memorandum of agreement respecting the establishment of the proposed park, signed January 26, 2013.

Mr. Chair, this bill needs amending to address the following clause, because in the agreement of that date it states:

Parks Canada will work with Ontario to develop written policies in respect to the creation, management and administration of the Park that meet or exceed provincial policies regarding the Transferred Lands, including the policy set out in things like the Greenbelt Plan 2005, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan....

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I'm going to make a statement here.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading or a bill at report stage is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, this is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible. That is not debatable; however, you may challenge the chair if you choose to do that.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I want to ask the officials a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Okay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Woodworth raised the issue of this particular memorandum of agreement respecting—

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. McKay, we're on the actual clause, not on the amendment. The amendment is out of order. I've ruled it out of order.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

No, I'm not asking a question on your ruling, dubious as it may seem. I'm asking a question of the officials here as to whether they consider themselves to be bound by this memorandum of agreement. Mr. Woodworth raised the issue when we were debating a previous clause, and I think it's a legitimate question to ask officials whether they see themselves as bound by this particular memorandum of agreement.

It has nothing to do with your ruling, however inadequate that might be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. McKay, just for the record, we're debating clause 11 right now. Is what you're asking directly related to clause 11?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Apparently it was at one point, wasn't it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Is it now that the amendment has been ruled out of order?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

It is even if the amendment is ruled out of order. It is still relevant to the clause, and it's a legitimate question to ask of officials—

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair—

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I'm not debating the ruling. I'm asking the question of the officials.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Well then there's no reason to continue on.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

There is a difference between making a ruling, which I am not challenging.... As I said, it's a dubious ruling in the first place; nevertheless, we'll go with it.

All I want to know is whether the officials consider themselves to be bound by the agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

We need to stick with what's in the bill, and none of these concepts were part of the bill. They were part of a discussion. The memorandum of agreements were part of a discussion. We're not talking about those right now.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Then I will challenge you.

Of course, the underlying concept of the bill is that the Province of Ontario and the Government of Canada have an understanding, which apparently has had its props kicked out from underneath it.

I would like to simply ask the officials: are you bound at this point?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

We're going to move ahead with the vote on clause 11.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

How are we voting here, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Clause 11, the amendment—