Evidence of meeting #31 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Okay. So we can agree that it has perhaps not been used for the last 10 years, but maybe it was beforehand.
Director, Portfolio Management, Crown Corporation Governance, Department of Transport
Maybe.
November 2nd, 2010 / 11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Frankly, although it's a good proposal, and obviously it was in the act before, it would be best to leave the flexibility to the committee and the commission to appoint a special executive committee as they need to--and we have heard evidence that they can still do so--not to set up a committee that has absolutely nothing to do and is set up for no reason.
From that position, the government would vote against this particular amendment.
(Amendment negatived)
(Clause 8 agreed to)
(On clause 9)
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Mr. Chair, could I ask you to postpone discussion on this amendment? My colleague Mr. Nadeau is in an in camera meeting with the commissioner of official languages at another committee. He is going to join us momentarily. I suggest that we wait for him before discussing amendment BQ-3.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I have a difficulty with that.
If we want to move on to another clause, that would not be a problem--unless it would affect any others.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'm going to ask Monsieur Guimond that.
On clause 10, we have a BQ amendment as well. Is that the same request?
Bloc
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Could we deal with Liberal amendment 3, or do you want to postpone all of clause 9?
Our amendment on clause 9 is to add after line 31, whereas the one for the Bloc is removing lines 22 to 31. Maybe we should postpone amendment Liberal 3 so that we discuss it all at the same time. I wouldn't mind.
Conservative
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
I have no objection to waiting, but, through you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Proulx might notice that his amendment proposes an addition after line 31, and we are asking for lines 22 to 31 to be deleted.
In any event, if you prefer to debate clause 9 in its entirety, we could postpone the discussion on amendment BQ-3. I have no problem with that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I think I'm going to defer until Monsieur Nadeau....
We do have some open clauses we could pass. Unless there's further debate, we'll stand clause 9.
I will move to clause 12. There are no amendments to clause 12, so I would ask that clause 12 carry.
Monsieur Proulx.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Can I have time to look at it, please, because there are a whole slew of amendments in clauses 10 and 11.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Yes.
(Clause 12 agreed to)
We have clause 14 without any amendments.
(Clause 14 agreed to)
There are no amendments on clause 16.
(Clauses 16 to 18 inclusive agreed to)
I'm moving to clause 20, showing no amendments.
Monsieur Proulx.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
There's G-9, which is proposed clause 20.1. Does Mr. Jean feel it connects to clause 20 as such, or would you rather let it go?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Clause 20.1 is showing as a new clause. If we want to pass clause 20 and then deal with 20.1, we could.
Mr. Jean.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I have no problem dealing with both clause 20 and clause 20.1 at this stage. I don't think it changes the substance of any other clause.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Do we want to discuss proposed clause 20.1?
Monsieur Guimond, clause 20.1 is a government amendment. Again, we can wait, if that's your desire.
Bloc