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.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Since I was trying to find a compromise out of courtesy to the government, I am going to propose a subamendment that point (b) be removed.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Okay. A subamendment has been proposed by Monsieur Guimond that paragraph (b) be removed from the original amendment G-5 on page 15 of your amendments.
Is there any debate?
(Subamendment negatived)
Shall the amendment as proposed carry?
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Oui. We're back to amendment G-5 and I'm asking if that amendment shall carry.
(Amendment agreed to)
Because G-5 has carried, Liberal-5 and BQ-5.3 cannot be moved, which takes us to Liberal-6. So we're dealing with Liberal-6 on page 17, and after it's introduced, I will make a ruling.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you.
In the general direction of the National Capital Commission having a planning role to play in the national capital area, we feel that to that planning role should be added the question of sharing the jobs of the federal public agencies in the national capital region, 75% in Ontario and 25% on the Quebec side, and establishing the employment nodes in each of these provinces.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
The ruling of the chair is that the introduction of the notion of employment is a new concept and beyond the scope of Bill C-20. I will therefore rule it inadmissible.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
The chair's decision has been challenged.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
As the ruling of the chair has been sustained, Liberal-6 is inadmissible, which now moves us to BQ-6. Here I'll advise the committee that if BQ-6 carries, so does BQ-9, and if BQ-6 doesn't succeed, BQ-9 will also fail.
Monsieur Nadeau.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Mr. Chair, this amendment would remove from the bill the part on the national interest land mass. So it is a major amendment.
The idea of a national interest land mass, included in the bill, would allow the National Capital Commission to designate any land, such as Gatineau Park and other land in and around Gatineau, as being part of that land mass. On one hand, this new designation and increased presence by the NCC in the Outaouais region may further complicate the government of Quebec's ability to exercise its jurisdiction with respect to land use planning. On the other hand, the idea of a national interest land mass flies in the face of the Quebec nation and the integrity of Quebec's territory.
The integrity of Quebec's territory is a principle that has been staunchly defended by every Quebec government, regardless of its political stripe. Coupled with the NCC's existing expropriation rights, the provision regarding national interest land mass would give the NCC too much power.
There you have it, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I think his comments were sufficient for the government side.
November 2nd, 2010 / 12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Is there any further comment?
(Amendment negatived)
So BQ-6 has been defeated and BQ-9 as well.
We now have G-6.
Monsieur Nadeau.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I was just going to say that it's totally within the prerogative of Monsieur Nadeau to challenge your ruling that they coexist and that one has to be excluded. So he certainly has the ability to challenge the chair, notwithstanding the fact the timing might be out of order.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Mr. Jean can say that because he has had the support of the NDP since the beginning, and he knows he is going to win. There is indeed a coalition between the NDP and the Conservative party.
Mr. Nadeau asked a valid question in an effort to understand the rationale behind the decision. If this keeps up, it will be next week before we find out what the rationale was. And we are not sitting next week. We are well within our rights.
When it comes time to study certain other bills, and all three opposition parties stick together, Mr. Jean will not be so quick to jump on the chair's ruling.
We asked a question: how is amendment BQ-9 related to amendment BQ-6? We are asking the chair to explain that to us.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'll try to give that explanation as well as I can.
I can say that what was suggested to me, and I accept it as guidance, was that if one were to be defeated or adopted, then it would apply to BQ-9. For a better understanding, I am going to move forward, and when we get to amendment BQ-9, we can have the debate on that amendment at that time. I don't fully understand the definition I'm getting either, so I'm going to leave it in there and let the committee make that decision.
We're going to move to government amendment G-6 on page 19.
Go ahead, Mr. Jean.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would propose this amendment in that--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'm sorry. I want to again make people aware that if amendment G-6 is approved, amendments BQ-7, BQ-8, and Liberal-7 cannot be moved.
Go ahead, Mr. Jean.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you.
This was a discussion among the parties some time ago. This particular section was proposed as a result of the interest of most parties to consider one of its priorities to be “the maintenance or restoration of the ecological integrity of that property through the protection of natural resources and processes”. The government would simply suggest that the NCC take it as a consideration within the bill itself.
Conservative