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.
4:10 p.m.
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?
4:10 p.m.
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).
4:10 p.m.
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—
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
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?
4:10 p.m.
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.
4:10 p.m.
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—
4:10 p.m.
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.
4:10 p.m.
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.
4:10 p.m.
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?
4:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
No.
4:10 p.m.
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)
4:15 p.m.
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?
4:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:15 p.m.
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]