Transport Committee on April 30th, 2015

[Alain Langlois]

The comment was made to us. We gave the same explanation I'm giving you, and this seemed to satisfy the concern.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

The insurance industry is satisfied with this?

[Alain Langlois]

The comments that were made, the explanation that was given, and the explanation as to what “operate” means in the context of the act seemed to address the concern.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Chair, as a former corporate lawyer who litigated and I look at the plain English language of this, what I see is cause of action all over this for different parties who will argue that somebody else was in fact involved as well, and not just their client. This is why we've evolved, especially in terms of the specificity of “charge, the management or control” at the time of the accident or release, on so many of the transportation of dangerous goods questions. We've narrowed it down precisely to circumscribe the possibility of saying others were involved too.

[Alain Langlois]

The problem with that language is that if I have a railway that carries traffic on the railway line of another railway, and there's an accident, who has control of the traffic is technically speaking the railway that's carrying the traffic. I think the intention of the government was to avoid debate as to what was the cause of the accident. It could be faulty trackage, which would be the host railway. In that case, the intention of the government was to make both railways that are physically involved in the accident liable, and that language would not address it.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Is there no further discussion?

(Clause 10 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 11 to 16 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 17)

Next we have NDP-2.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'm moving the amendment.

NDP-2, our second amendment, is regarding the fact that this bill repeals the definition of “fatigue science”, in subsection 4(1) of the Railway Safety Act.

We did ask questions to the—

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Before we go any further, you've moved it and I had to let you do that before I make my ruling. I have to rule this inadmissible on advice that I have, Mr. Mai.

Okay?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Noted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I don't think we need a vote on it.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Unless I challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes, okay.

With that, shall clause 17 carry?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

On division? Okay.

(Clause 17 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 18 to 20 inclusive agreed to)

Now on to proposed new clause 20.1.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

That's NDP amendment 3.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, are you moving that?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I am moving that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I have a similar ruling on that one, Mr. Mai.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Noted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

This was for a new clause, and now that it's basically withdrawn, we don't have a vote on it.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

It's deemed inadmissible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Rathika.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I thought it was deemed inadmissible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Yes, it was.

(Clauses 21 to 33 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 34)

On clause 34, PV-1.

Is there any discussion on Ms. May's amendment?