Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 46-60 of 60
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Environment committee  They were defeated.

May 7th, 2009Committee meeting

Wayne Cole

Environment committee  Amendment BQ-2 was adopted.

May 7th, 2009Committee meeting

Wayne Cole

Environment committee  G-1, as it was submitted to the committee, deals only with the English language of the text. Am I to understand that the committee wishes also to amend the French version of paragraph (m) by including the word “notamment”—

May 7th, 2009Committee meeting

Wayne Cole

Environment committee  —as was done in the earlier amendments?

May 7th, 2009Committee meeting

Wayne Cole

Environment committee  Okay, thank you.

May 7th, 2009Committee meeting

Wayne Cole

Environment committee  Yes, BQ-7 was withdrawn. We're now on G-6.

May 7th, 2009Committee meeting

Wayne Cole

Environment committee  Could I get some clarification, please? The amendment to G-2 was to remove the words “in a community near” and replace them with “related to”, and in French, the addition of the word “notamment” after “d'argent” in the second paragraph. I don't have any difficulty with the word

May 7th, 2009Committee meeting

Wayne Cole

Environment committee  So we take out the words “in or near”.

May 7th, 2009Committee meeting

Wayne Cole

Environment committee  It's G-5.1

May 7th, 2009Committee meeting

Wayne Cole

Environment committee  No. Those have been defeated. So it's just clause 26.

May 7th, 2009Committee meeting

Wayne Cole

Natural Resources committee  It's just an amendment to the English text of the bill.

April 28th, 2009Committee meeting

Wayne Cole

Transport committee  He's talking about the next motion, which will substitute text, and that's what he wants to amend. But we have to deal with the first one before we get to it.

June 6th, 2006Committee meeting

Wayne Cole

Transport committee  There is a royal recommendation attached to this bill, which governs expenditures made in accordance with it. The appointment of a commission would entail additional expenditure, and that's not covered by the current royal recommendation.

June 6th, 2006Committee meeting

Wayne Cole

Transport committee  If it’s optional or mandatory, it does not have any impact. Furthermore, even though the commissioners may not be paid, there would have to be administrative costs. Bill C-3 is not what gives the minister the power to appoint commissioners, but other acts.

June 6th, 2006Committee meeting

Wayne Cole

Transport committee  With respect to amendment NDP-3, it would require the consent of the municipality. That goes contrary to the principle of the bill, which is basically to provide for the Governor in Council to have the authority to issue relevant permissions. A veto given to the municipality goes

June 6th, 2006Committee meeting

Wayne Cole