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.
12:10 p.m.
Director, Portfolio Management, Crown Corporation Governance, Department of Transport
In the national capital region, everyone has an idea of what the Greenbelt is. Furthermore, the commission is not able to provide a legal definition at this time, as is the case for Gatineau Park.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Chair, once again, things are being hidden, as was the case when we were studying Bill C-37. A bit further on, we will come to a point when we will want to discuss the description for Gatineau Park. I think the bill has some 37 pages of descriptions.
Right now, we are being asked to endorse a term because the government implied that there was an intention to extend the same protection to the Greenbelt as the protection that will apply to Gatineau Park. So we are being asked to add the Greenbelt without knowing what it refers to.
If you were to ask 10 Ottawa residents to define the Greenbelt, no two people would give you the same answer. It is very unfortunate that the government wants to keep us so in the dark. It would certainly be a first to agree to include a term in a bill without being able to define it. I am very disappointed.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'll come back to the legislative clerk. Can I ask, Mr. Chair, in respect of your ruling, if the new concept is the definition of “greenbelt”? Is that correct? Is it a new concept outside of the scope?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Right. It's an amendment to a bill that's beyond the scope and the principle of the bill. It introduces the introduction of the greenbelt as a new concept, which is actually beyond the scope. That's why I said the ruling impacts several other amendments, and if the committee chooses to ignore my ruling, then we would deal with all the amendments that are included.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
My understanding, though, of this particular concept--and correct me if I'm wrong, please, members from the other side--is that it is a concept brought in by the opposition parties during the discussions. In fact, I think Mr. Proulx was leading that charge, in that he wanted the greenbelt to have some sort of significance as a terminology and some form of protection other than what it would have had as the bill was phrased originally. So this is actually a concept brought in by the government at the request of the opposition party.
This, of course, is the difficulty. If you're ruling it out of order, Mr. Chair, and even if we challenge it, obviously it's going to go back to the House, and the House, as it has done for another bill of ours recently, could sustain your ruling. Then we'd be back to the same place we were before. So I see no advantage in challenging the chair at this stage, especially having regard to what Mr. Proulx said.
Does Mr. Proulx or Monsieur Nadeau have some other suggestion in relation to this?
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Monsieur Nadeau will be next, but if it is reported back to the House after my ruling is challenged and overruled, it would only become an issue in the House if it is raised as a point of order to the Speaker. If there's agreement in the committee, it can be presented back into the House. In the case of the previous bill, there was a point of order raised against it, and it therefore became the issue.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
To start with, this is not a new concept. As your witness just said a few minutes ago, the greenbelt is known in the Ottawa region. It's being referred to in all types of different municipal, provincial, and federal uses.
To say that it's a new concept to the bill.... I don't agree with Mr. Nadeau. We had witnesses. When we had hearings on Bill C-37, we had witnesses come and explain to us what the needs were to protect the National Capital Commission's part of Ottawa known as the greenbelt. The greenbelt does exist in Ottawa. It's to pin down what territory it covers.
Now, if we were to accept this way of doing things, does it mean that for schedule 2.1 to be legal or to be accepted eventually it would have to come back to this committee, sir? We would be accepting schedule 2.1, but in fact the schedule doesn't exist, so we would have to create that schedule sometime in the future.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Clearly this happens all the time when we refer to something in legislation that comes out later in regulations. It's no different than a schedule or anything else, and every—
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Exactly, Mr. Proulx.
If I may continue, all legislation refers to regulations that don't come into place until after the legislation is passed. The regulations are done similarly and identical to this, as the schedule would be, because it would pick a place that was recognized as part of the greenbelt.
But, Mr. Proulx, you are entitled to challenge the chair, as Mr. Nadeau is then able to not vote for that challenge and then bring it up in the House, where, again, if it's not sustained, the Speaker would rule in favour of Mr. Nadeau—
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm trying to explain, if I can. I have the floor, I believe.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
What I'm trying to say is that ultimately it would be best if we tried to find a solution here today, rather than go through that circus called...what can happen next if we don't agree with the challenge, or if Mr. Nadeau doesn't. I think that's the reality, and that's why we met with all the parties to try to resolve this outside of this committee. But if we can't have it—you're totally within your right to challenge the chair.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
