Transport Committee on June 6th, 2006

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

My position is that I think we should vote on the amendment put forward, first of all, and then deal with the subamendment and argue that case, because otherwise it's a moot point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'll let Mr. Masse speak, but the subamendment actually applies to the government amendment number two. So, Mr. Masse, if you have any comments, what I'd like to do is proceed with that, and then your two amendments, and then go to—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Just briefly to what Mr. Scott has articulated, and I don't mean to reiterate things over and over, but the reality is that it is a significant shift.

I can take a specific example, in 9/11. When the border closed completely, it was the municipalities in the area that actually managed the traffic flow through the entire community, but we were solely dependent upon the border crossings and getting them through in different capacities. The municipality, though, deals with all the repercussions along the way, and hence just the inclusion of consultations is what's sought after here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast, very briefly.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, we may be forgetting something here, and that is the removal of paragraph (b) is in response to concerns raised by industry, and we have responded to those concerns and we have committed to address the issue in regulation. So if Mr. Masse wishes to provide for some consultation in that process, then perhaps he should address it through the parliamentary secretary and the minister as they are crafting those regulations.

The problem I have is that we had crafted some legislation, most of which is acceptable to the industry, but there are small portions of it that cause some serious concerns, especially with respect to the financial ramifications. We're taking this section out as a response. And I think it's healthy. They support the removal. I believe generally this committee supports that removal.

So I would prefer we simply move ahead with the current amendment, see where that goes, and if in fact there's need to address consultation after that, obviously you, as chair, are going to consider that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We have an amendment, G-1, on clause 15, and I'll ask if that amendment should carry.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Are we doing subamendments first?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're going to go down.... I have this amendment.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We have two more amendments to clause 15: NDP-6 and NDP-7.

Again, Mr. Jean, I'm going to have to give you the advice I've received, and that's that your amendments as presented are inadmissible, the first one because it's beyond the scope, and the second one because it is contrary to the principle.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'm sorry. I was a little bit taken aback. I feel as though I'm bombarded; I have more paperwork than anybody else here, so I think that should give me some leeway, but....

Just going back to Mr. Masse's comments in relationship to stakeholders, I have a proposal for this that that might be satisfactory to him and might solve the whole situation. So when that comes about, that's what I'm interested in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Okay. Seeing that they're both inadmissible and it looks as though there is some agreement to it, I will ask if clause 15 as amended shall carry.

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

What about proposed new clause 15.1?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're going to deal with it separately.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Doesn't it become part of clause 15?

I see; it becomes an additional—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It becomes a single clause in itself.

(Clause 15 as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Now we have a new clause 15.1. It's amendment G-2. It should be in your file.

We have a subamendment coming forward, but I would ask if there's any discussion or anything on this before....

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

The specific one I'm proposing is “municipal government”. That's consistent with language of the bill, and it would be on line 13 of the English text of amendment G-2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

So it would say, “Before ordering an owner or operator...the Minister shall consult”--

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

It would be “shall consult with the owner or operator”—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

—“owner or operator or municipality”?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, “or municipality”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That would be an amendment to the proposed new clause.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'm just wondering if Mr. Masse and all those people who would be in favour of something like this would accept: “...the Minister shall consult with the owner or operator”, and then new words: “or any other entity that is, in the opinion of the Minister, a relevant stakeholder, having regard to all the circumstances”.

I can tell you why I put in all of that. I know it sounds like a lot of legalese, but if I may say so, there is a positive.... What happens is that there is indeed a positive requirement on the minister to consult, and I'm concerned with the timeframe. That's why if we have “having regard to all the circumstances” in there, if there's any review of it later on and there's an emergency.... For instance, who knew in 1989 we were going to have a problem with terrorists? If there's something that comes along in the future that means the minister—and this is the only person in all of Canada who can make this change—wants to make an immediate change, he can do so immediately, “having regard to the circumstances”. That makes sense.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Could you read the amendment again?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Certainly. It reads: “...with the owner or operator”, and then here's the amendment:

or any other entity that is, in the opinion of the Minister, a relevant stakeholder, having regard to all the circumstances

The words “relevant stakeholder” would be obvious, but “having regard to the circumstances”, means that if it's an emergency situation it can be done, but if it's not an emergency situation different stakeholders would be involved in the consultation, and that would be a requirement.