Evidence of meeting #8 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.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
No, you're talking about the wrong clause. Clause 43 is housekeeping.
12:35 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport
Clause 43 is simply to provide for clause 15.1 in the sanction provisions, so that orders issued under that will be sanctioned. That's all. It's purely technical.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
12:35 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport
No, that provision merely refers to a consultation process.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
That would be the issue I was discussing, Mr. Chair, in relation to--
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Oh, that's right. I'm sorry.
We had amendment NDP-8.1 on clause 16. If I understood it correctly, the amendment would be withdrawn based on the assumption and consideration of this committee that we will move very quickly into the review of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, which is part of the safety and the security the committee deemed a priority.
Mr. Scott.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
Could I ask the parliamentary secretary, is this review sanctioned or is it something that we're doing on our authority?
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
On our authority as a committee, just simply to deal with safety and security.
My comments to Mr. Masse, and those of the department, are that this is under review right now. We're very interested, obviously. How can you deal with the safety of all modes of transportation in Canada unless you're dealing with dangerous goods, which are obviously one of the major aspects of this. I think what we should do is just have the committee's opinion at this stage, if that's one of the first pieces of legislation that we want to review relating to the safety of transportation in Canada. It would make sense to me.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
I would make a distinction, though, between the committee making a decision that we would wish to consider a subject and the parliamentary secretary, representing the minister on this committee, giving us assurances that this would be something that the government would in fact sanction.
The committee, particularly in a minority situation, can call on anything, frankly, if we decided to do it. It's more important that the government is agreeing to this exercise. The parliamentary secretary, as the representative of the minister on the committee, is saying this is something the government sanctions, as against it simply being something the committee is demanding—which is a very different thing. I would want to hear from the parliamentary secretary on that.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Just a response, Mr. Jean, and then I'm going to go to Mr. Laframboise.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
The response is simply that our minister is very, very interested in anything the committee brings forward, because we obviously represent all Canadians here. I would assure all members that in my opinion—and this is my opinion only, because I can't bind the minister, or the Prime Minister, of course—anything that the committee brings forward as an action item, the minister will look at and take serious consideration of and I believe do.
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I'm very unhappy about one thing. According to procedural rules, we're entitled to propose some amendments today. Earlier, departmental officials told us that it was too early to do that, that they didn't have enough time to analyse them. I'm quite convinced that Mr. Masse's proposed amendment would not have affected any other acts. We were short on time and I think it's regrettable that we did not have access to the retinue of law clerks who could have ruled immediately on the status of this amendment. I cannot readily accept the request for more time. To my mind, this was an improvement of the position taken in the bill. I'm convinced of that, but I will go along with the decision. I have no objections if Mr. Masse wants to withdraw his amendment. However, I do object to being told that officials only received the amendment this morning. After all, this is important. Once the legislation is adopted, it's a done deal. I'm not very happy with the way things have gone.
12:40 p.m.
Director General, Surface Infrastructure Programs, Department of Transport
If I understand correctly, the committee will hear from representatives next Thursday on this very matter. Since the committee will be dealing with this legislation next Thursday, we're talking about one week.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
From my perspective, I see this as a more onerous position for the government. I'm willing to drop my specific amendment to this clause, but I am doing so under the advice and I guess from the discussion we have had here that there is going to be a serious review of the legislation and improvements. I think Canadians should expect that. We have a serious problem with the transportation of dangerous goods and hazardous materials through our communities.
The United States has already been dealing with that. They have separate legislation. They are actually redirecting train traffic of these materials to other destinations, away from communities and from centred areas where populations are large. They've been dealing with this specifically.
So this is a very complex and larger issue, and I think this puts more onus.... I don't have a problem dropping it right now, since I think, quite frankly, they know they have to come up with a solution and accountability related to dangerous goods and hazardous materials on bridges and tunnels. They had better do so soon, because they will be responsible if this bill passes and there are no plans and no changes.
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I simply wanted to point out to Ms. Marcoux that based on the order in which government bills were tabled, Bill C-3 should be debated in the House before next Thursday. That information was passed along to me by my leader.
As you can appreciate, that could potentially influence my party's position on this bill or our discussions. I'd like us to have this time, but in my opinion, the process of adopting the bill will already be under way. I realize that we can always amend the bill before its adoption, but it will already have come up for debate next week in the House, before we've heard from everyone.