Evidence of meeting #43 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was parks.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I do. It's for a clarification of which clause we're on.
You're going to call the question, “Shall new clause 2.1 carry?”, right?
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
The question I need to ask is this. We had a proposed amendment from Mr. Robb that came up last week. There was a new proposed subsection 6(3).
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I'd like to ask Parks Canada a question about that. It would be bringing it forward from the floor to get their comment on the appropriateness—
Liberal
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
I'm just asking when I would do that. Which clause would that be under? Where are we at on this right now?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
You're not going to be happy with me, because we adopted clause 2, and it would have been in clause 2.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Nobody's going to like me. I'm glad I brought cake.
By unanimous consent, which I'm not sure you're going to get—
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
No, let's say I made a technical error. I spoke with Mr. Robb last week and said that I would raise it at the appropriate time. I thought we were at the appropriate time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We were at the appropriate time when we were doing clause 2, because he wanted to add it to clause 2.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
By unanimous consent we can go back and open that up and you can put it on the floor.
Do I have the unanimous consent from the committee to do that?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
I don't have unanimous consent. I'm sorry.
We are now on clause 3.
(Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 1)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Now we have to go back to clause 1. We stood that clause because of the definition. We couldn't pass it because there was a possible amendment to the definition, but that definition has not been adopted in the amendment, so I have to rule on it. I have to read my ruling.
Just so you know, I am ruling on amendment CPC-0.1. In terms of definitions, the interpretation clause can only be amended if the bill has been amended in a way that requires such a change, so this is not the place to propose a substantive amendment. This did not come up as a clause passed, so in essence, I rule it inadmissible because it's not referenced and it's not in any of the amendments adopted. That's another inadmissible.
(Clause 1 agreed to)
Shall the title carry?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
We are done on the Rouge Park, plus the clause-by-clause consideration. Thank you all very much. Good job to all of you. I think there was a lot of very good information brought forward to be considered and I appreciate the staff being here to help us through with some of those decision points.
[Proceedings continue in camera]