Evidence of meeting #27 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 report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
--because, obviously, how we approach each clause is related to whether or not amendments were adopted.
In this case, for clause 3, what we're essentially doing is saying that we're having only five members and we are providing new powers to the Transportation Agency. It doesn't make sense to me that we're throwing in an extra workload and actually reducing the number of members. So I'll be voting against this clause.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
There are no amendments to clause 4.
(Clause 4 agreed to)
(On clause 5)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
One minute, please.
I'm advised that because the clause 3 amendment was defeated, the amendment for clause 5 is no longer admissible.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I would reluctantly have to agree with your interpretation, Mr. Chair. We did have the debate and the discussions, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to take my minute to talk to the government about what it has just done.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
This is what they're asking us to adopt: “The members shall reside in the National Capital Region”. That's what they're asking us to punch through this committee, and it's absurd, to my mind. With the incredible transportation diversity of this country and the fact that we need to attract the best qualified people for a job that essentially involves people going out to the regions, we're forcing them to come to Ottawa.
It's different from the Supreme Court. As the parliamentary secretary well knows, the Supreme Court sits here. There is a building here; that is where they do their work. The work of the agency is out in the regions.
Although occasionally meetings are called for here, the essential part of the work and the mandate, which was given to the Transportation Agency, is out where it counts: across the country. So it is a different situation entirely than the couple of examples the parliamentary secretary mentioned.
So I cannot do anything but speak against clause 5, which the government is putting forward, which reduces the pool of possible effective workers in this regard, and I believe that strongly penalizes my region, British Columbia, as well as other regions across the country.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
I understand this clause 5 has been changed somewhat from what was originally presented, in terms of distance that the Governor in Council determines, which could even be outside Canada when distance is not defined.
Apparently the Americans recently went over to Dubai to look at people running their ports. But we go back to the previous...where they have to be Canadian citizens, right?
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Transport
There's a requirement that during the terms of office, the members have to be Canadian residents and reside in Canada. So it covers the possibility that the Governor in Council may, for whatever reason, allow members to live in the U.S., for example.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
It strikes me as unusual, in terms of the distance.
(Clause 5 agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Yes. There are no amendments, so I guess I made an assumption there. Sorry.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
For the record, Mr. Chair, I'm doing my due diligence, as we all are. I just want to make sure I'm on the right page and looking at the right clause before we vote.
(Clause 6 agreed to)
(On clause 7)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Amendment BQ-1, Monsieur Laframboise.
Before that, I do have to make a clarification. The amendment you're proposing is identical to CPC-1, so basically we're talking about the same motion between the two.
Mr. Laframboise.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
The sole purpose of the amendment is to reduce the time period. It is written, and I quote
(5) Unless the parties to a dispute otherwise agree, the mediation of the dispute shall be completed within 60 days after the dispute is referred for mediation.
We are proposing that the time limit be 30 days, given that the section uses the phrase, “Unless the parties to a dispute otherwise agree”. So, if the parties determined they needed more time, they could decide to agree. The fact remains though that we hope it happens as quickly as possible. Thirty days seems to us to be a reasonable time limit. Since the section provides that the parties can request by mutual agreement to have more time, it will surely be granted, if everyone agrees.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Are there any comments?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll now go to government amendment G-2.1, on page 12.1.
Mr. Jean.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For those members who haven't had an opportunity to address it, this amendment actually accommodates requests from various parties, including shippers and railways. It obviously enables the agency to conduct mediation and arbitration under the commercial dispute resolution process on a cost-recovery basis. It was actually as a result of requests that this amendment was put forward, after consultation with both shippers and rail.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Could the parliamentary secretary read the amendment, please?
Conservative
Conservative