Evidence of meeting #37 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Madam Chair, just a moment, please. I would ask you for a little time, given that we have just received this. We are trying to understand.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Madam Chair, I would ask that the meeting be adjourned for a few minutes, to give us time to talk about this amendment. We will let you know when we are ready.
10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Maybe we should read it out so we're very clear. I'll ask the clerk to do that.
10 a.m.
Legislative Clerk
The English version, the sheet that was provided to everybody, indicates what is removed. In proper drafting, if you will, it will read:
That Bill C-227, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 2 and 3 on page 2 with the following:
“reports on community benefits provided in construction, maintenance or repair projects.”
10 a.m.
Conservative
10 a.m.
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Madam Chair, we have to speak for just one minute. I have a very important analysis to share.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Madam Chair, I would ask that the meeting be adjourned for a few minutes.
10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I want to make sure everybody is clear on everything. If Mr. Sikand's motion is adopted, then the NDP-5 will not be able to be voted on.
All those in favour of—
10 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
10 a.m.
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I think there was a very good reason that this amendment was brought forward, and it's to make sure that the bill doesn't actually affect anything.
Let's look at that objectively. If you put “on community benefits provided in” before “construction”, it means that every time the minister does a report, it will always be positive. For each contract, she will find something that was adequate towards this bill, and she will present this adequate result.
The other way around, the way it was before, she had to present each construction report and try to find community benefits provided by the construction. Now it's the other way around. By doing so, they are just protecting the minister. This is exactly what it's doing.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
I simply want to add a comment to what was just said.
I understood very clearly that this amendment would make mine go away, but, most importantly, it would make the whole assessment element that the report could contain go away.
We will end up with a report that, in reality, will be a list. It will be a list of fine achievements, and if there are, that is a good thing. I do agree that they need to be highlighted. However, in that case, we cannot call it an assessment.
A minute ago, amendments that I proposed were rejected, on the argument that the bill had to be allowed to evolve. Well, if the Liberals want to allow the bill to evolve, but we are not providing the tools needed for seeing how it is evolving, I find it hard to see how I could support that. It appears to me to be totally contradictory.
I am therefore going to have to vote against this amendment.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I am going to reiterate that in French. That way, it will be a little better, I think.