I can agree to that.
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.
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.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
If I understand rightly, at the end of the subsection, you would remove “concerning the impact that those tolls, fees or other charges could have on their financial situation”?
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
No, it's not really that; I'm sorry, Mr. Laframboise. It was just to put in there.... I'm not removing any words at all; all I'm doing is adding words.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
You’re just adding words. All right.
It is not because I was very impressed by the representatives of the Ambassador Bridge, but if you are discussing their financial situation, you are discussing their balance sheet. This is a private company, therefore you have to beware of any discussions you have about it.
That the federal government should be able to discuss the financial situation of a company with it is all right, but if you do so with stakeholders in the community, you are probably going to make public the company’s balance sheets. I would like you to take that into account. I do not want to protect them, but the situation of the Ambassador Bridge representatives is special.
12:35 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport
Yes, if I may.
I will answer the member’s comments.
It is solely a question of the order in which the parties must be consulted. If we began by talking about a consultation with the people Mr. Jean talked about using his words and then referred to a consultation of owners and operators about their financial situation, this would deal with your concern and also Mr. Masse’s.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
Not to complicate this further, but I would be satisfied, and I think there would be a broader consensus in the community itself, if you articulated, “the owner or operator and the municipality”, and then said “stakeholders”.
The reality is that I don't like to set the precedent that we are characterizing municipalities as an order of government, as stakeholders, in the same way as other people would be stakeholders. Other stakeholders don't get elected, other stakeholders don't have public mandates, so I would like to see that “municipal government”--whatever the language is--included, and then go to “stakeholders”, because I think there's a distinction.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I was just going to say that I think you're right, and I think Mr. Masse is correct.
I would suggest that instead of “municipality”, it say “other levels of government”, just to include.... For instance, some are owned by the province, some are owned...you know. And as long as we have—and I haven't got a legal opinion on this—“having regard to all the circumstances”, so that it gives the flexibility to the minister in cases of emergency, that's really what I'm concerned about.
So for the blues, in a thousand years when they read about our discussion, that would mean that “having regard to all the circumstances” would include every stakeholder that would be relevant. Is that correct? Would that be satisfactory?
Mr. Laframboise?
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I am going to read this amendment, and hopefully I've got it right:
...the Minister shall consult with the owner, operator, or other level of government, or any other entity that, in the opinion of the Minister, is a relevant stakeholder, having regard to all the circumstances concerning the impact that those tolls, fees or other charges could have on their financial situation.
Mr. Jean.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I suggest that the only change would be to “levels” of government
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
In terms of the grammar, I guess, could you read the reference to the “relevant stakeholder”?
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
It would be: “or other levels of government, or any other entity that, in the opinion of the Minister, is a relevant stakeholder, having regard to all the circumstances...”.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Okay. When you start with “owner or operator”, then go to “stakeholders”, and then come back to “the impact that those tolls, fees or other charges have on their financial situation”, you're really relating that part to the owner or operator, are you not? You're taking the broader picture, the financial situation of any of the stakeholders?
12:35 p.m.
Director General, Surface Infrastructure Programs, Department of Transport
I think one of the comments was to put all the stakeholders before the owner and operator and then have the financial situation.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
That is what I was going to suggest, that you talk about all the circumstances that could relate to the other stakeholders, then the impact of the tolls and fees specifically with respect to the owner or operator, because that affects them directly.
12:35 p.m.
Director General, Surface Infrastructure Programs, Department of Transport
That's what you want. Yes, I agree.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
So the wording would be the way you had it, but you would pull the “owner or operator” part to the end and say “and with the owner or operator, concerning the impact that these tolls, fees and other charges...”.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Could I ask the indulgence of the committee? I know we're not going to get this bill finished today. I would ask that this be brought back to us, and we can continue with the other relevant clauses. Then we can have it in French and English for everyone to look at and confirm that it's appropriate.
Mr. Jean.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
On the record, it is very important to have all the stakeholders, including owner-operators and levels of government, included as one form, and whether fees and charges impact municipalities or whether they impact owner-operators.... This is not a law that says this is the way it has to be done. This is in the opinion of the minister--an intelligent person at all times, especially in this particular case. But if a person is going to be making a decision like that, I don't want to take out owners and operators and just say, okay, we're going to deal with owners and operators just on fees. I think they need to be consulted on everything.
If they're relevant in the opinion of the minister, whatever the impact is, they should be consulted, and I don't think restricting owners and operators to fees is logical.
12:40 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport
I'd like to pick up on your offer to take some time to do the drafting. When I'm sitting with the drafter by myself, we sometimes take a long time to develop revisions. My own experience is that the more people who are added, the more difficult it becomes.
What I would undertake, though, is to speak with my drafting colleagues. I think I understand very well where we want to go. I'd like to basically work with them, and of course, with the parliamentary secretary and everybody involved, so that we can come to the next meeting with something that is agreeable to everybody.