Transport Committee on June 6th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

I'm sure that all the stakeholders involved sometimes think government moves too slowly, and then when they do proceed, they think they're moving too fast at times.

[Evelyn Marcoux]

It's a catch-22.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Absolutely.

Clause 7 has carried, so we'll move to the next clause.

(On clause 8--Approval of Governor in Council)

We have an amendment introduced by the NDP. Again, I'm advised by counsel that it is inadmissible due to its being contrary to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I would like, at an appropriate time, at least written correspondence from the department on the inadmissibility of the amendments. They were originally submitted--those ones, in particular--from the City of Windsor and their legal experts.

I would like to have a copy of that tabled. They're different from some of the ones I submitted.

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

Just for clarification, it's not the department that provides that; it would be the clerk. I would be interested in that as well, the reasoning. But for certain, it has nothing to do with the department; it has to do with the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'll ask my capable man beside me to respond.

[Wayne Cole, Procedural Clerk]

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 against that. Because the bill has been approved by the House at second reading, the committee is required to respect that principle.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That's fair enough. I understand we're going to hear this theme on a number of these amendments, but I would like to have it specifically in writing to be tabled at the end of the day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

As quickly as we can get them prepared.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, not necessarily at the end of this day, but as the clause-by-clause procedure winds its way through committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'll perhaps ask that all members of the committee be copied with those reports.

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Just to add a layer of understanding to the situation, while the parliamentary support is responsible for determining the admissibility of the amendment as to whether or not it violates the principle, there is also the decision as to whether the bill comes here after first or second reading. If the bill had come here after first reading rather than second reading, then the admissibility would be different.

There is a layer of responsibility that gets us to this place that needs to be clearly understood.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, that is also information for me.

(Clauses 8 to 11 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 12—Expropriation)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We have an NDP amendment, NDP-4.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Why don't we get an interpretation first? Is it going to be deemed admissible?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It is acceptable and debatable.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

The amendment reads: 12(2) Despite subsection (1), no expropriation shall be initiated until the approval of the Governor in Council has been given in accordance with section 8 and except in accordance with any terms and conditions imposed in that approval.

It's consequential, I believe. I'm dropping the amendment since it's consequential. It just reaffirms the process I couldn't change.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Right.

(Clause 12 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

There is a new clause, 12.1, amendment NDP-5. Unfortunately, it is inadmissible due to requiring royal recommendation. It violates royal recommendation.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

May we have further explanation on that, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I would ask my clerk.

He would like further explanation.

[Wayne Cole]

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.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

In the amendment, the minister may appoint a commission. That is up to the minister's discretion. What's to determine whether funding will be required?

I come from a municipality where, once again, there is no joint type of management. It's different from Sarnia, or Sault Ste. Marie, or Fort Erie and Buffalo. There is no type of governance model whatsoever, and I know people would gladly volunteer to participate in a body that would at least have some involvement with the planning and coordination of border facilities.

This is the problem we have in my jurisdiction. It's chaos. There's absolutely no coordination whatsoever. To a significant degree, it has empowerments and it has the interests of everybody working together. I suggest that you would find individuals willing to sit on such an authority through appointment without remuneration.

My previous submissions had more details of what that might be. But it turns out that they were suggestions that it would be more for regulations, in terms of what that body would be, so I dropped the specifics, to be determined by regulations. Once again, “may” does not impose this on all jurisdictions and regions. What it does is provide for those who have a complete void of this to have that opportunity, if the minister desires it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Scott.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Is there anything to preclude the minister from doing this in the legislation now? So he may do it anyways.