Transport Committee on Dec. 7th, 2009

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

The problem with amendment G-6 is that the approval of the plan still remains with the Governor in Council and not—

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

We did debate that issue. You could move an amendment; that's what I'm suggesting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

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

Aside from paragraph 2, I have no problem with amendment G-6. In fact, the amendment will apply once the master plan has been laid before each house of Parliament. Paragraph 2 as drafted might be problematic, but that is not the case with paragraphs 3 and 4, because amendment G-6 deals with the stages that the master plan must pass through once it has been tabled in the House of Commons.

By consultation, we are talking about a stage that occurs prior to the tabling of the plan. This is not the same thing. My understanding is that you want to prevent any consultations before that time, but if we adopt the amendment and make sure that consultations are held beforehand, your amendment will not pose any problems, that is if we withdraw paragraph 2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Just to clarify again, if the combined amendments are proposed, then amendment G-6 couldn't be presented as is. It could be changed, but it wouldn't be in a position to be proposed.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Monsieur Laframboise, particularly, I would accept a friendly amendment, from the government's perspective, to include “public, provincial, and territorial comments”, or something in that order. Is that not satisfactory?

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

No.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Or “public comments and provincial consultations”?

What is the difficulty with subclause 10(2)?

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

That is because we have included a timeframe.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Just so I understand directly, because I must not be understanding, what is the difficulty with subclause 10(2)?

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

That is because those are not real consultations. You state that “In the development of a master plan, the commission shall provide opportunities for public comments [...]”. We have been having the same debate from the outset. To provide comments and to consult, are two completely different things. Even if you added “the two governments, i.e., Quebec and Ontario, will be able to submit their comments”, they will submit them, but they will not have been consulted. However, what we are proposing is a true consultation. You should join us on this. As for the rest of your amendment, it is satisfactory.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe, on a point of order.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Some of us have been paying attention for the last 40 minutes as we've gone from one amendment to another to another in an attempt to clarify the two previous amendments and part of a third one. When I really focused, I thought Mr. Bélanger had made a suggestion of a friendly connection of a previous amendment to the Liberal amendment that would have covered our concerns. Would it be inappropriate for me to ask the chair to go back to Mr. Bélanger and ask him to present again what he had proposed? We could deal with it and then worry about amendment G-6.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

It's almost 5:30 now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I don't think that would be a problem at all. In fact, we were just discussing that.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Could we do it now?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

One, we have to recognize that it's a friendly amendment, and if he wants to continue to put it forward, we would vote on the subamendment first, and then the amendment with the subamendment.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Could we just understand exactly what's going on? I got a little lost after “Listen carefully.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Okay. We're dealing with amendment BQ-4 and Mr. Bélanger has proposed a friendly amendment to it, a subamendment. If that's acceptable to Mr. Nadeau, I will have Mr. Bélanger read it to the committee. There can be debate and then the committee will vote on the subamendment. Then we will add it to the original amendment, there will be debate, and we can vote on the amendment as amended.

Monsieur Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chair, what I had suggested was that where amendment BQ-4 now reads “force, the Commission, after consultation with the public and governments of the provinces concerned, shall submit to the”, I would add--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Pardon me. I think you stopped after “shall”.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Well, I had removed the words “submit to the” and would say, “shall lay before each House of Parliament, for approval, a master plan”, therefore incorporating amendments LIB-4 and BQ-4.

If you wish, I can read the entire clause 10.1 as it would--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

First we have to deal just with the subamendment.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

The subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes.

It has been proposed by Mr. Bélanger that we add, after the words “provinces concerned, shall”, the following words: “lay before each House of Parliament, for approval, a master plan”.

Is there any debate on the subamendment?

Mr. Jean.