Transport Committee on Oct. 26th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Nadeau, do you have a point of order?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, you have made a decision, and therefore it is not open to debate. If someone wants to challenge that decision, go ahead. Otherwise, we should not be discussing a ruling that you made and that cannot be debated. Thank you.

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

You have to challenge the decision, then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Okay. Mr. Proulx has challenged my ruling.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Bonnie Charron]

On the question, shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Could you repeat the question?

Mr. Proulx, you are the one who wanted the ruling challenged.

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

I want to know whether the ruling has to be sustained.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The question is—

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

But the....

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The question of the chair is, does the committee support the ruling of the chair, yes or no?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

And the Conservatives are opposed to it?

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

One person voted in favour of it.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Very well. Forgive me.

(Ruling of the chair overturned)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

As was previously stated, rules applying to G-3, G-4, LIB-7, G-8, G-9, and G-10 will be considered admissible and debatable.

Mr. Jean.

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

I'm wondering if the legislative clerk can advise whether it's the term “greenbelt”. I know we've already dealt with this, Mr. Chair, but it's important because I don't want to have this situation where we have a bill that comes before the House and we lose a couple of months without getting this bill passed, and then it's challenged and we have to go back to where we were.

I'm wondering if it's the term “greenbelt” that is found outside of the scope, because certainly if the greenbelt or the green area is referring to the place around the park, I can't see how that would be out of the scope. If the greenbelt or the green area defines an area outside of the park, which of course it does, because it's the park that surrounds it, would it not still then be within the scope of the bill?

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

May I interject here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Please.

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

I think Mr. Jean doesn't understand what we're talking about.

Just in case, the Gatineau Park is on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River. It's a free-standing park—fantastic. You told us before that you've been in the park. Good for you. The greenbelt is an assembly of land on the Ontario side of the Ottawa River that forms a U around the city of Ottawa, starting in the east end. It's an assembly of land that has been identified. It goes through the south. The Ottawa International Airport is part of the greenbelt. It ends up on the west side of Ottawa at the Ottawa River also. So it has nothing to do with the Gatineau Park.

The reason why we brought this into the debate is that we had witnesses who came in front of us for Bill C-37, asking us to have the same environmental consideration for the greenbelt that we were having for the Gatineau Park.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

For clarification, the term “greenbelt” wasn't introduced in the previous bill.

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

I understand that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It's a concept that's outside of it. We've agreed that it's acceptable, so as we proceed, the greenbelt will be considered part of the terminology.

Mr. Jean.

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

I'm trying to find clarity from the legislative clerk. This is the third time something like this has happened in a bill. This particular case is a good example.

I appreciate the lesson on geography, Mr. Proulx, and I listened to the same witnesses, so I understand what the greenbelt is.

What I was trying to use as an example is, if the definition of “greenbelt” is changed to refer to what the bill is actually dealing with, which is the park, if that is included in the definition, is it then within the scope?

I'm directing that question towards the legislative clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Again, I will answer on his behalf.

The greenbelt is not discussed in the previous bill. It has been added to it, which means that it has broadened the scope of the bill, which means it's inadmissible. If the committee agrees that it should be included, which they have by overruling me, then it is now included in all of the discussion. It's like discussing this room and then adding the room next door to the discussion without anybody knowing why it was added. We've agreed that it should be added and we'll proceed with it as part of the definition.

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

I understand, Mr. Chair, but with respect, this room does have a room next door and we all know that the room is next door, even though it's not referred to in the legislation. I'm wondering how we can change the definition to acknowledge that it is referred to, the room next door, that this room does exist.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You would have to do it by consent of the committee, which you just did. You can't just assume that people are going to know it. You have to either have it in the bill or have agreement to have it added, and we've had agreement to have it added.

Now we will open the floor to debate.