Transport Committee on Dec. 12th, 2006

[Alain Langlois]

This has much more to do about physical damage caused by the construction or operation of a railway and this is how the Court has interpreted section 95. This is not really about damage that may perhaps be less quantifiable from a physical standpoint. That's the way I would qualify it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, are we debating Monsieur Laframboise's motion, which was ruled inadmissible, or have we now moved on to the conglomeration of amendments?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We are debating the proposal put forward on the government sheet.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Okay.

Just so I understand, in so doing, when this amendment is eventually put to a vote, would this effectively nullify the amendments following, which are combined in this government—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I was going to clarify that once we got through the discussion.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I can advise you that the vote on the government amendment would basically deal with the following: CPC-2, BQ-6, L-3.3, NDP-14, BQ-7, NDP-15, and L-4. To my understanding, it encompasses the language being presented in those amendments.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It's an attempt to encompass that language, right?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Then can I infer, Mr. Chair, that a number of the subsequent amendments that would be dealt with here chronologically are going to be ruled inadmissible?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

For this particular clause, the two amendments that we would be able to continue debate would be NDP-12 and NDP-13. It would require some positioning, but those amendments would be applicable and debatable.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

And the others would be—?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The other amendments wouldn't be accepted.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

If this passes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

If this passes, true.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I would like to discuss whether or not this motion is in order. I would like to table the e-mail that the legislative drafter, Mr. Francis DesCôteaux, sent to the Bloc Québécois research analysts. It reads as follows, and I quote:

Michael Lukyniuk and Susan Baldwin, legislative clerks, confirm that the motions would be in order. More specifically, Motion 2459208...

That corresponds to amendment BQ-6.

...it would be in order since the bill includes an "environmental" dimension by adding the obligation to respect the environment under section 5 of the Canada Transportation Act (see clause 2 of the bill, line 24, page 1 and line 11, page 2).

I would like to submit a copy of this e-mail to the clerk. I also have copies for everybody, because I feel that my rights are currently being infringed upon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I appreciate the information provided by Monsieur Laframboise. It is in French only, and I would need unanimous consent to table it for all the members, but in review, I would have to stand by my original decision that it would be inadmissible.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

According to Standing Orders, I have the right to challenge your decision and appeal to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

What I would like to suggest, the advice that I've been given, is that this document, in my mind, would be third party, in the sense that there is one person making a comment on behalf of two other people. It is not from the actual people who were credited with the comments.

I understand that it was dealt with or that this decision was made on November 8. Collectively, the clerk and the counsel are suggesting to me that it is inadmissible. If anyone would like to see it, unfortunately, I don't have it in the English form, but it is actually a statement by someone referring to the comments of two other people. These are not actually the comments of the original people.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I understand, Mr. Chairman. I said this to you at the outset: we submitted our motion to the legislative drafter who then went to see the legislative clerks in order to ascertain whether or not it was in order. That is the mandate that we gave to the legislative drafter. He responded to us by e-mail. Some of my colleagues do not want to entertain this e-mail, but I have brought copies. Mr. McGuinty would like a copy; you can provide him with one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Again, I would have to suggest to the committee that the drafter of the legislation is making a comment on behalf of the legal counsel, and I would suggest that that is out of order, and I would still rule that the amendments would be inadmissible.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Chair, with this, it doesn't reflect the best way for us to accept amendments. Our clerk probably received this weeks ago, and only today have we told the proposer that it's not in order. It's rather late to receive that information. I know that committees often work this way, but it's really not fair to legislators to find out a few minutes before they make a decision that an amendment that's been sitting here on our desks for weeks suddenly is out of order.

I don't want to criticize the clerk, but was there any correspondence to indicate when this was received that it was not admissible?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It is the chair that has the right to make that ruling, and I think the tradition has been, at least at this committee and at every one I've sat on, that it is made at the time of presentation. But again, I would like to advise the committee that this comment is being made by the drafter, not by the legal counsel being quoted in this article. It's like me saying that you agree with a statement, not with the person himself.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Chair, though, if I may interrupt again, the more significant point is that you have taken full responsibility, but you must have had this, and probably as chair you should have indicated to the honourable members that there was a problem with it. Otherwise, we get to these meetings and anything could be thrown in or thrown out at the last minute. It doesn't reflect a good way to do legislation.

The intent, I'm sure, of the honourable member was good, but for some reason, today he's informed. Maybe he was informed yesterday.

Mr. Laframboise, were there previous indications that—?