Evidence of meeting #36 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was park.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
I've already done it.
(On clause 10—Public consultation)
We have amendment NDP-12.
Ms. Leslie.
NDP
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.
Rathika Sitsabaiesan NDP Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
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.
Green
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....
Conservative
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.
Liberal
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Mr. Woodworth raised the issue of this particular memorandum of agreement respecting—
Conservative
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.
Liberal
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.
Conservative
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?
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
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—
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I'm not debating the ruling. I'm asking the question of the officials.
Conservative
Liberal
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.
Conservative
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.
Liberal
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?
Conservative
