Evidence of meeting #29 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
October 26th, 2010 / 12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
If I understand correctly, Mr. Jean, you are talking about meetings we held in the fall of 2009, not recent meetings.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Our guest at the end of the table is from the department. Welcome, and if there are any questions for you, I'm sure members will ask.
Also, for information, we have tentatively suggested November 22 for La Pocatière--that is a Monday--and I would ask members to check their calendars. We haven't confirmed anything, but I'm putting that out there. I know, Mr. Guimond, you talked about a Monday.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
November 22. It's a Monday. I'm putting that out there, and I would ask committee members to get back to Bonnie as quickly as they can, if that works. The funding has been approved for it. We were scheduled to do it in the last session, and due to circumstances, we didn't get there. They've invited us back.
We'll now move on to Bill C-20. The preamble and clause 1 will be postponed until the end.
(On clause 2)
We have a government amendment, G-1.
Mr. Jean.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The amendment we're proposing has to do with a definition of “ecological integrity”. Obviously the document can speak for itself, but I will recite it into the record:
“ecological integrity” means a condition that is deemed to be characteristic of a natural region and likely to persist, including abiotic components and the composition and abundance of native species and biological communities, rates of change and supporting processes;
I understand that this definition was taken from the definition in law.
Mr. Dubé confirms that.
12:05 p.m.
Simon Dubé Director, Portfolio Management, Crown Corporation Governance, Department of Transport
It's from the National Parks Act.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Yes, “that is determined” is proper, and the text is correct.
(Amendment agreed to)
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
There was quite a discussion amongst members previously on what “greenbelt” means. That's why the definition has been added.
So “greenbelt” means an area whose boundaries are described in schedule 2.1.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Before I go to comments, I'm advised that this amendment is beyond the scope, in adding a new concept of “greenbelt”. It would also impact amendments G-3, G-4, LIB-7, G-8, G-9, and G-10.
Obviously, if the committee chooses to take a different position on that and support the amendment, I'm not going to rule all the other amendments out of order. If my decision is overturned, it will apply to all of those, and we will include them in the discussion.
Monsieur Proulx.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
Director, Portfolio Management, Crown Corporation Governance, Department of Transport
It's one of the motions--probably the last one. I don't have the numbering, but it's schedule 2.1.
12:05 p.m.
Director, Portfolio Management, Crown Corporation Governance, Department of Transport
As it stands now, it just provides room for the actual description of the boundaries, because they do not exist now, as they do for Gatineau Park. So if you go through all the motions the government is presenting, it provides for the insertion within five years of the actual description of the greenbelt boundaries.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
In other words, you are suggesting including the term “Greenbelt” in the bill, when that term is not defined or described anywhere.
