Evidence of meeting #30 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I'm having a hard time reconciling what the Competition Act says and what the head of the Competition Bureau is saying. Going back to that paragraph, I can't divine what was in Sheridan Scott's thinking, but--
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
I can't read her mind either, but I can give you what we pulled off from the Competition Act, if that's helpful. I have no problem with doing that.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Shall amendment L-2 carry?
(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We have a new amendment, which is the one we've been talking about. We are going to label that G-2.1.1. I think, unless anyone else needs more explanation....
Go ahead, Mr. Laframboise.
4 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I would like to move a sub-amendment. I don't want to engage in endless debate on this, but I would like to add, after line 1 in sub-section (2.1), which reads as follows: “The guidelines referred to in sub-section (2)”, the words “will be developed in cooperation with the Competition Bureau”.
4 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I think that improves the wording. This addresses the exact problem that is referred to in a letter we received from the Competition Bureau. The two agencies do not work together. So, I intend to support the sub-amendment.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm just wondering whether the intention is to have “consultation” or “cooperation”. The first time it was read it was “consultation”, and the second time it was “cooperation”. I'm wondering if it would be better to have it as “consultation”, and then the authority would remain, instead of having it as “cooperation”. It would be the same wording, but just “...shall be developed in consultation with...” instead of “...in cooperation with...”, because it's one department instead of another department. Is that correct? Yes. It would be much better to develop it with the word “consultation” instead of “cooperation”.
It may be the same in français, but not in English. The translation was different, and I want to make sure that it's “consultation” and not “cooperation”.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Does everyone understand, then, where that subamendment will come in? What I have to do is ask whether there is agreement for the subamendment.
(Subamendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 13 as amended agreed to)
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I call clause 30.
There are no written amendments.
Mr. Laframboise.
(On clause 30)
4 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
If I understood correctly, the decision is to stand clause 29.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Absolutely. What I'm going to do is go through and then go back to the ones we've stood from previous meetings. Is that all right?
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I call clause 32, on page 20.
Monsieur Laframboise.
(On clause 32)
4 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I would like to come back to clause 31, just to say that we are in favour of it. A little earlier, we raised our hands to indicate that we were opposed, but in actual fact, we support it.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you. I was perhaps a little ahead of you there. I'm sorry.
(Clauses 32 to 38 inclusive agreed to)
December 7th, 2006 / 4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Mr. Chair, I just wanted to ask a question for clarification, if I may.
Under clause 36—and I voted yes for it—I just wanted to clarify something in my mind. Does the disclosure of an agreement mean the details of the agreement, or just the fact that there is an agreement?
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
It would be the entire agreement, unless there is something that is commercially confidential.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
On clause 39, we have an amendment; it's NDP-16, on page 31 in your program.
I want to bring to the committee's attention that the way the amendments are proposed, if the first amendment, NDP-16, carries, then NDP-17 through NDP-21 also carry. If it fails, the same numbers all fail, and we would deal with BQ-8, for the information of the committee.
I'll ask Mr. Julian to propose the amendment, NDP-16, on page 31.
(On clause 39)