I'd like to call our meeting of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development to order. This is meeting number 38. We all know that the purpose of our meeting today is to discuss the clause-by-clause analysis and approval of Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canada National Parks Act with respect to Nááts’ihch’oh national park reserve of Canada.
We are going to begin with clause-by-clause consideration. As you all are aware, we always leave the short title until later, so we'll move to clause 2.
We don't have any motions on clause 2, 3, or 4.
(Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 5)
We'll move now to clause 5. We have a number of amendments here, PV-1, PV-2, PV-3, and PV-4, and these are all deemed tabled even though the mover is not present.
We will ask our legislative clerk to give us her information on these.
With respect to PV-1, this amendment proposes to remove the powers outlined for the minister with respect to his or her ability to enter into leases or licences of occupation of and easements over public lands in the park for the purpose of establishing a mining access road.
This amendment, therefore, seeks to do the exact opposite of what the clause intends and goes against the principle of this clause.
Members who do not agree with the powers outlined for the minister simply should vote against this clause, as House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair, this amendment is contrary to the principle of the bill. Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.
PV-2 is approved as an amendment, but we need your opinion on this one. It's considered moved.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll move to PV-3. Similarly, this amendment proposes to remove the powers outlined for the minister with respect to his or her ability to issue, amend, renew, suspend, or cancel permits and authorizations for the use of public land in the park for the purpose of a mining access road.
The amendment, therefore, seeks to do the exact opposite of what the bill intends and goes against the principle of this clause.
Again, members who don't agree with the clause simply should vote against it, as House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair, this amendment is contrary to the principle of the bill. Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.
We'll move to PV-4. This amendment proposes to remove the powers outlined for the minister with respect to his or her ability to issue, amend, renew, suspend, or cancel licences for the use of waters in the park for the purpose of a mining access road.
This amendment, therefore, seeks to do the exact opposite of what the clause intends and goes against the principle of the clause.
Members who don't agree with the powers for the minister should simply vote against the clause. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on page 766:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair this amendment is contrary to the principle of the bill. Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.
Go ahead, Ms. Leslie.
