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.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
--possibly offensive about allowing communities, with the approval of the municipality, to control these key corridors that are often wonderful opportunities for parks or bicycle paths.
We're not talking about something that is radical; we're talking about something that communities are doing right now. You should know that.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We've had extensive discussion on both sides of this issue. Can we call the vote, please?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
This will be the last point, and then the question will be called.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
As I understand it, what Ms. Borges just told us is that the impact of this would treat community organizations.... Clarify for me, please. There's a hierarchy of disposal, right? The land must first be offered to the federal government?
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
If it crosses a provincial jurisdiction.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
Right.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
We're adding an in-between, an urban transit authority, because there are numerous urban transit authorities, such as the ones that appeared before this committee--
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
--that cross numerous municipalities. They provide transit. It's a point Monsieur Carrier was making, that we want to preserve these for transit and then the municipality.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Okay.
This would add community organizations. Would it add community organizations at the bottom of the pecking order, or would it make equal--first in, first out, so to speak, FIFO--as in, first in bidding for it, first out with the property?
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
I think that would--
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Because my reading of the amendment suggests that it would equalize all orders of government, community organizations, and urban transit authorities as racing in to bid first. I may be misunderstanding this.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
No, it's after. Reading the motion, it's after the urban transit authority, so it would come before municipalities.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
So in effect it would be giving them priority over municipalities. I'm reading NDP-16.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, I would just like to answer that question.
If we look at NDP-17, it is addition of a paragraph (e), which would clearly be after the municipal organizations. So it would go to federal government, provincial government, metropolitan area, then urban transit authorities, municipal or district governments through whose territory the railway line passes, and then finally—Mr. McGuinty's question is a very valid one—the last stage would be the head of community organizations.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'm going to ask everybody in this room if they would please turn off their BlackBerrys. Apparently, we're getting a tremendous amount of static. If you have to use them, I would ask that you please go outside.
I really believe we've exhausted this discussion. I would like to move forward, if I may.
I'm calling the question on the amendment, NDP-16.
(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
The amendment is defeated. Therefore, we'll now exclude NDP-17 through 21.
We will go to the BQ-8 amendment on page 32. Monsieur Laframboise.
