Yes. She has one minute for her amendments.
Evidence of meeting #62 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was clauses.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #62 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was clauses.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm just looking through the number of amendments. Many of them are superseded by other opposition amendments, so I'm not looking at their being more than 10 or 12 opportunities where this may happen. In the fulsome four or five hours, or more, that we're going to be here, I just don't see it as a significant cost to the committee members. I do apologize, Chair, I know you're seeking to have clarity.
I don't know if the government wants to make any comment on that.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
You know, Chair, every member of the committee, including Ms. May, came in here today with an understanding that was agreed upon ahead of time, so I'm quite surprised that Ms. May is asking for this, because she knew ahead of time exactly what the rules were.
4:35 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Every committee takes a different approach and some let me respond.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
It's not a big deal if we allow it to happen once, but my concern is that it's going to happen many times, and we're already going to be here quite a long time. If Ms. May agrees that it will only happen this once then we can bend the rule, but if she can't agree to that then let's just move on.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Mr. Chair, I think you explained it extremely well. With all respect to Ms. May, we've had this process before. I understand what Mr. Cullen is saying and I appreciate his intervention; however, we have one small party in the House that's not an official party or an official caucus. We have a number of independents. All of them could be here, all of them with the same amount of time, and this could turn into a real mare's nest. I think we simply need to follow—
4:35 p.m.
An hon. member
You shouldn't have passed—
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
I think we need to follow it. It's unfortunate for Ms. May, but we need to follow the process we set up.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
That's the direction I've been given and that's the direction I will follow, unless the committee wishes to vote again on the amount of time.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay. I was doing the vote on amendment NDP-1.2. All those in favour?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The amendment is defeated. As I mentioned, that vote applies to the Green Party amendment, PV-2.
Shall clause 137 carry?
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
No.
Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote.
4:35 p.m.
An hon. member
A recorded vote for 137 to 142...?
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Can we do a recorded vote for clauses 137 through to 142?
Mr. Brison, can we do that?
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
That finishes division 1. We thank our officials from Industry Canada for being with us here for division 1.
We shall then move to division 2. This is the Aeronautics Act section, clauses 143 to 144.
I welcome our officials from Transport Canada to the committee. Thank you for being with us.
(On clause 143)
We have one amendment for clause 143. We have the Green Party amendment, PV-3.
We'll go to Ms. May, please.
4:40 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment to the Aeronautics Act has been very controversial within the industry. Many of the organizations involved in aviation, such as the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, the Helicopter Association, and the Aviateurs et pilotes de brousse du Québec, have given you a lot of evidence of concern here.
I cite the evidence of the Canadian Airports Council. There is a large and important airport that is a significant part of my riding, the Victoria International Airport. The brief from the Canadian Airports Council points out that although there were informal discussions at Transport Canada, “there was no consultation with industry on the broader language currently being proposed. They also say, “We contend that this legislation should have been subject to the same process that normally would be undertaken”.
I know that there was also some supportive testimony on this, so what my amendment attempts to do is craft a requirement for the appropriate consultation to take place before non-urgent prohibition orders for aerodrome expansion and development take place. As you can see, my amendment requires in proposed subsection 4.31(2) that the minister consult with any person the minister considers appropriate, and in my proposed subsection 4.31(3), that if it is urgent and there's a security issue, the minister may act without consultation.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Ms. May.
Are there any further comments on this?
We'll go to Mr. Allen, please.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Allen Conservative Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the comments from Ms. May; however, when you look at the amendment as it's proposed, it does get into.... When you look at the Aeronautics Act and what is proposed in the legislation, it says that the minister “may make an order prohibiting the development or expansion of a given aerodrome or any change to the operation...if, in the Minister’s opinion, the proposed development, expansion or change is likely to adversely affect aviation safety or is not in the public interest”.
I think Ms. May's amendment goes into security as well, actually, with respect to “the security of any aircraft or aerodrome or other aviation facility”. That's not the intention of what we're trying to do in this act, I think, to actually get into the security side of that. This amendment, I believe in this case, is overreaching for what we're trying to do. However, I do have a question of clarification, but if the officials could clarify this...? I think this is true.
The other question of clarification I do have, though, is that there have been representations made on this issue by COPA and other organizations that I'm familiar with, and there is some difference of opinion. So here's what I would like to ask. When it comes to the regulation-setting process—because I understand that this legislation is enabling legislation to allow for a regulatory process to happen after that—could you confirm with me that we're going down this road and that the consultations will happen before any adoption of any regulations?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
