Transport Committee on Dec. 12th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It is against my better judgment, but I will allow it to be read into the record. I believe there are going to be two people named in this document who are unaware of their names being in this document and referred to, and I want the record to show that.

Again, I would look to the committee for direction. In my mind, this would be like my making a comment on behalf of everybody in this committee and attributing it to them and putting it on the public record.

As a chairperson, I totally disagree with that. I think if we want to hear this comment, we should ask these people to attend this committee to make these comments. This is a third-hand document.

Mr. Jean.

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

Mr. Chair, with respect as well—I would do the same if this document were in English and not in French—I take exception to the committee's even entertaining it without its being in both official languages, and especially as third-party information, which is not admissible in any law for anything. Why we as a committee would look at this at the ninth hour....

We made a commitment at the last meeting and the meetings before, and privately when I spoke to many of you, to get this bill done today. Yet here we are, not even moved anywhere in an hour and a half. Now we're finding a filibuster from every side.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I gave you that document. Earlier, you read your legislative drafter's decision. You read it, you did not give me a copy of it in both languages, and I did not ask you for one. I read the document out to you. I brought copies of it so that people can read it. I can read out to you the document that I received from the legislative drafter who drafted my amendment and who had asked for the legislative clerk's opinion. Let me read it out to you for clarification.

I do not agree with the position that you propose. I expressly asked the drafter who drafted my amendment to verify if it had been tabled, because that would change my working schedule. I want you to understand that. If I am not working on this amendment, I am tabling something else regarding the terms "minimum", "reasonable", etc.

Someone has misled me. Was it the legislative drafter who drafted my amendment? I asked for an opinion, because I wanted my amendment to be in order; otherwise, I would never have tabled it.

Now you are telling me that it is out of order. You did not give me three days notice, you are telling me that today. Since November, I was assured that this amendment was in order. This is why, last time, I questioned Mr. McGuinty regarding an amendment. I know that I had asked for opinions to find out whether my amendments were in order. Now you are telling me that they are not in order. This is why I have doubts, not about your decision, but about the clerk's advice. This is not your decision. This is advice from your clerk. Nevertheless, the legislative drafter who drafted my amendment checked with the clerk.

It does not matter what happens to my amendment afterward. It can be defeated, anything can happen to it. However, as an elected representative, I feel that I have been cheated by the government apparatus. I do not feel cheated by you or by the committee and I do not want to create obstructions. I simply said that I wanted to adopt the bill today. That is my concern.

I have a list of amendments to propose, and proposals will no doubt be made if we add the term "vibrations". If your legislative drafter decides that it is out of order, then I have made no progress, Mr. Jean. If we can all agree about adding the term "vibrations" and if the clerk says that it is not in order, it comes down to challenging the clerk's decision.

I would like us to go ahead and add a few things. However, I am not sure whether your clerk gave you good advice. I have a problem with it. You should also have a problem with the fact that your clerk has given such advice.

I will probably agree with Mr. Jean about some amendments, but what will happen if they are not in order, Mr. Jean?

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

I agree with you. Everybody agrees with you here, but we still have this in front of us. Let's get it done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Excuse me, Monsieur Laframboise. My only comment is that I believe you took your advice from the wrong person. You took your advice from a drafter, not from legal counsel. The document is stating that the drafter is making these comments, not legal counsel. I can't help that. If you want legal advice, you have to talk to legal counsel, not to the drafter of the amendment.

That's what we do as a committee. We take it before legal counsel and they give us an opinion. Regardless of what the drafter says, it is legal counsel and the clerk who make those decisions. You're taking the advice of a drafter, not the advice of legal counsel. I think the document makes that very clear. I regret that you believe the drafter had the authority and the right to make a legal comment, but I suggest to you that he did not.

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I just want to add a few things.

I just want to make it very clear from the Liberal side in this committee that two or three times now the word “filibuster” has been used by the parliamentary secretary. There's no filibuster here. We've all been working very well on this for months, so it's unreasonable to make that suggestion. I am sure Mr. Laframboise is capable of saying the same thing--he just said it.

Secondly, Mr. Chair, I would draw a distinction between your comment earlier about you speaking on behalf of this committee and an officer and employee of the House of Commons relaying the legal opinion from two colleagues. We will agree to disagree on this, I'm sure. I don't think it's third party or hearsay.

I'm not sure if we're going to make progress on this, but we may want to set this aside until we have an opportunity to hear from the two named parties in this note.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm not prepared to do that.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It might facilitate our actually hearing.... I am concerned with the way this has transpired. I think Mr. Laframboise, from what I can gather here in the correspondence, has taken all reasonable steps to try to secure agreement that these would be accepted at committee, and clearly they're not.

I'm not sure, as a member of Parliament, what test he's expected to meet. We got the clarification from the legislative clerk earlier about the role of a drafter and the role of legislative counsel, but this is a grey area where I don't think it is as black and white as it's being presented.

I am going to suggest we consider setting it aside, not in the interests of delaying this but to make sure this is properly treated.

I don't see, Mr. Jean, the concerns raised by Mr. Laframboise in his amendment reflected in the government's omnibus amendments at all. I see the same test being put forward—not causing unreasonable noise—and I would remind all of us that we had at least eight witnesses who came here and gave us written briefs and oral presentations saying that one of the biggest problems with this bill was the unreasonable noise test.

I am in your hands procedurally, Mr. Chair, and I sympathize with you. My support is with you. I'm not sure where we are now, but I think we're still on the question of debating Mr. Laframboise's...the appealability of your decision.

I am in your hands procedurally as to where we go here from now. How do we actually move forward and deal with this question of appealing your ruling on the admissibility or inadmissibility of this amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

I am wondering if I could ask the committee's indulgence for two minutes. I won't speak, but could we take a two-minute break? Is that at all a possibility?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Two minutes would not make that much of a difference.

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

I know, I'm filibustering for two whole minutes. Can we take a two-minute break?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We'll suspend for two minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

When the committee suspended, Mr. Laframboise was suggesting that he was going to challenge the ruling of the chair, and I will go to Mr. Jean on a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, I think we have reached a reasonable compromise with some of the other members, and I'm wondering if instead of having Mr. Laframboise move that motion, I could read into the record what I believe to be an agreement among at least some of the members, which would be satisfactory, on clause 95.1.

If everyone wants to look at the government's proposed consolidation of amendments, “When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company will cause as little noise or vibrations as possible, taking into account”, and then without going on, Mr. Chair, the balance of (a), (b), (c), and (d) would be the same.

So it would read:

95.1 When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company will cause as little noise or vibration as possible, taking into account

In fact I would change that to read “and/or vibrations” instead of just “or vibrations”.

Having talked to the drafters, Mr. Clerk, I would substitute “and” for the word “or”.

So it would read:

When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company will cause as little noise and vibration as possible, taking into account

And then (a) through (d) would remain consistent.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Why not “and/or”?

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

I was told by the drafters that “and/or” is not necessary.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

You don't use that in legal drafting.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

But if you use “and”, are you not requiring both then?

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

That would be my argument. I would prefer leaving in “and/or”.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

It's one or the other or both.

[Alain Langlois]

It's one or the other. Using “and” implies that you have to comply with both.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

So we don't want both.

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

The Senate, as the sober second thought, if such is possible, might come back with a change on that as drafters, but I would propose “and/or”. I think it is clear. I would prefer “and/or”. Sorry.