Evidence of meeting #7 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
12:15 p.m.
Director General, Surface Infrastructure Programs, Department of Transport
This is part of how the government does business. Before we have to take action, it's part of a consultation process.
12:15 p.m.
Director General, Surface Infrastructure Programs, Department of Transport
Okay.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Will there be more descriptions of proposed new clause 15.1 through regulations?
12:15 p.m.
Director General, Surface Infrastructure Programs, Department of Transport
No. In fact, this takes it outside the process. It takes it outside the regulation process and puts it into the guidelines process, with Governor in Council approval, on the recommendation of the minister. This basically allows the minister and Governor in Council to react more quickly or to have more flexibility in administering the issue as appropriate, as opposed to it being embedded in the regulation.
That's what the amendment proposes.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I don't think it would be adverse.... I'd like to add another amendment to include the local municipality, since the minister is doing it in an advisory capacity. They would know best; I would imagine that the department of transportation in each municipality is going to know best how the flow of traffic is managed in the community.
I think that would be fair, because this is an advisory to the minister, and that's all it is. It will ensure that he's going to pick up the phone, or his officials will, to consult with those individuals. Is that correct?
12:15 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport
Yes, but I'd like to make a comment.
I understand your point vis-à-vis the consultation of the community and all of that. As Evelyn mentioned, however, the whole idea of the provision is to be reactive. In other words, my sense is that if there's a traffic problem resulting from modification of the tolls, the people you referred to earlier, the community, the municipality, and all of that, would in all likelihood be the ones triggering the process. They would pick up the phone to say there's a line-up in front of the school because the tolls have increased. The mayor could do it, or whoever.
There would be an impact on somebody. The idea is that you're going after the person on whom there will be an impact. The way this provision is developed is to have those who are negatively impacted on trigger the process.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
With all due respect, if it's not triggered by individuals and the toll later has adverse consequences for the community that aren't anticipated, then where is that role? I fail to see how they could be left out of this, when you have operators that are included, and this is consultation.
I've had a number of different things ruled out of order here, but this is consultation again. How can you suggest that the owners or operators, as well as the minister, are going to have the best knowledge exclusively of this, when you actually have professionals who are working locally on a regular, day-to-day basis to actually mitigate traffic in their community?
I don't understand how it wouldn't be a good thing, because if it isn't by the prompting of citizen groups—who apparently have to fight their way into the process again on legislation to actually get some type of representation, as opposed to being included in the legislation—I don't find it acceptable.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I was going to say, Mr. Masse, that I think most of us would agree. The difficulty, of course, is that when you consult and when you have the requirement to consult in legislation, it takes time. The Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in relation to consultations are very clear; if there's a positive requirement to consult in legislation, then you have to consult, and you have to go through the normal process. I believe this clause, as Mr. Harvey said, is to enable the minister to react instantly to situations, such as on health and security. This gives him or her the opportunity to do so immediately. I think that's the first step.
The second thing is that even in my community of Fort McMurray recently, we had an environmental situation where there were noxious fumes being put out by a particular situation. The provincial government, through its department of environment, closed that facility down, so it stopped. That does not mean the example you used for noxious substances.... The provincial government can certainly take steps to deal with that matter separately, through its department of environment, for instance.
This morning I was going through all of the different departments that are involved in some of the proposals you put forward, and there must be 15 to 20 different departments that would be required to do so. I think the cooperation level provincially and federally would be such that they could respond on an instant basis—and that's necessary.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you.
With all due respect, that hasn't been the case.
I do have a subamendment to add on line 13: after “operator”, the words “, and municipality”. So on line 13, after the word “operator”, we would add “, and municipality”.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I would substitute “, and municipality” and—maybe this would help—add “and stakeholders” too.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We're just finding out exactly where you are with that amendment.
Could I ask you to hold off on that. We're dealing with clause 15.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
But we're dealing with clause 15 right now.
Pardon me, we're on G-1, government amendment 1, clause 15.
12:20 p.m.
Procedural Clerk
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.
12:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Is this the discussion about the amendment tabled by Mr. Masse? No?
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
No, what we'll do is address the government amendment first and then deal with the subamendment he's adding to the next step.
Mr. Scott.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
Just as a matter of procedure, if a subsequent amendment is going to bear on the clause that you're discussing right now, it is not unprecedented to hold the clause you're discussing right now to deal with whether the committee is interested in the subsequent amendment, because that would bear on whether you want to change the one that is existing, just for what it's worth. You don't have to necessarily do these in sequence. That's just a point.
It occurs to me—and I'm looking over at the parliamentary secretary—that the theme that's emerging here has to do with the fact that we are moving from a situation where the municipality, particularly the Municipality of Windsor, had a virtual veto...is it fair to say, going back to the twenties?
12:20 p.m.
A voice
Yes.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
So we're going from that, which I believe the government would wish to move beyond, and we would support the government in that. However, I don't think you have to go from having that level of involvement by the municipality all the way to saying we would be open to consultation, or it's contained within the environmental assessment process, or some other.... It strikes me that if this is an attempt by the government to take ownership of this once and for all, which the press release suggests with some excitement is happening for the first time, why should not the government be compelled to consult?
You may be right, Mr. Jean, on this particular point, because this may be an emergency situation, but I think the general need to compel the government to consult is interfering with the discussion on this particular piece, which may or may not require that. But I think that's the problem. The problem is that the municipality does not wish to rely on the good intentions of the Government of Canada. They want to know that the Government of Canada, in moving away from the traditional relationship on this issue to the new relationship, should consult, and should be compelled to consult, just in general, and it shouldn't get in the way of every one of these discussions.