Evidence of meeting #31 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.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
What we have right now is a point of order. It is not a proposal or an amendment at this point in time. I would have to go to Mr. Laframboise. He still has the option of placing his motion on the floor.
Monsieur Laframboise.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
This is about the English word "will", that was chosen rather than the word "must". In French, this would mean "as little noise as possible", I suppose. But it would be better to use the word "must", which would mean that there must be as little noise as possible. I think that the word "must" is more appropriate than the word "will". 'Will" suggests something whereas the term "must" makes it mandatory.
5:20 p.m.
An hon. member
I would move an amendment to that.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Before we go to that, we have to ask Mr. Laframboise to make his motion to challenge the ruling of the chair or not, or to withdraw it.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Chairman, I will gladly withdraw my amendment, if Mr. Jean tables his current proposition.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I would like to add to the proposal put by Mr. Jean, if I could, because I think we could combine a few things that this consolidation of amendments purports to do anyway.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I think before I get you to add your comments, I need to have the actual amendment put forward.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
It's the one that Mr. Jean has helped Mr. Laframboise present to the committee. Basically we're saying now that BQ-4 and BQ-5 are off the table with this amendment coming forward. Is that understood?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I will read in the amendment, Mr. Chair:
95.1 When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company must cause as little noise and/or vibration as possible, taking into account
(a) its obligations under sections 113 and 114, if applicable;
(b) its operational requirements;
(c) the area where the construction or operation takes place; and
(d) the potential impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'm looking for direction from the committee.
As it was presented in one document, French and English, would you be prepared to table it as one amendment?
5:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
It would still open up some discussion, as Mr. McGuinty has asked, with regard to both his amendments and other amendments.
Mr. Hubbard.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Just to clarify, at first we ruled out that vibrations and fumes were beyond what we could do. I believe that's what the ruling was. Now we're saying that vibrations can be included, subject to the Senate or somebody else making changes, but fumes will not be part of the amendment we have before the committee.
Is that correct, that we're ready to deal with vibrations in addition to noise, but we're not willing to deal with fumes?
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
But to my understanding, the amendment that the government presented for proposed section 95.1 did not include anything but noise, which we are now considering.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
In other words, the government, or somebody, decided that vibrations should not be included. But I thought the advice we got from the—