Transport Committee on Dec. 12th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Jean.

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

I understand the committee's concern.

I'm wondering if Mr. Laframboise has had an opportunity to look at the proposal that has been offered to him. My understanding is--quite frankly, and laying all the cards on the table--that fumes are not in order, simply because they're not dealt with in the context of the bill itself. I think that's out of order.

I'm wondering if you've had an opportunity to discuss my proposal in relation to dealing with vibrations and if you would be amenable to that proposal. Given the comments by the department on the balance of the—

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

Once again, I just want to keep track of things. We will look into it, but I would just like to have a decision about the appeal. As for the rest, we are open to comments. We were convinced that our amendment was in order. As for the rest, we will look into it.

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

Mr. Chair, just—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Before I respond to anybody else, I'll ask the legislative clerk to make a comment, please.

[Mike MacPherson, Procedural Clerk]

Basically, a letter is sent out as soon as the order of reference is received by a committee to study a bill or any legislation. A letter is sent out to all members of the committee identifying who the legislative counsel is, who will be drafting amendments, and who the legislative clerk is who will review amendments for admissibility. The letter actually states that if you have any concerns or questions concerning admissibility, you are to contact the legislative clerk; for drafting purposes, you are to contact the legislative counsel.

I thought I'd put that out there to clear it up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think you've been fair throughout this process.

We have a situation here that's a little delicate. Because we can also appeal your decision on unanimous consent, I think the will in the four corners of the room is that we would move to a consideration of the appeal of Mr. Laframboise.

I would urge you to move to that. Otherwise, we'll be caught up in a lot of procedural wrangling. Generally speaking, I think we want to consider this amendment.

I'm not reproaching your work or the work of the legislative clerk. I think you worked in good faith. But there's obviously an inconsistency here, and I think the committee as a whole politically will have to make the decision on how to treat that inconsistency.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

To that issue and to the advice we had from the clerk, the question I had written down is this: would the words of the legal counsel have made a difference? In other words, if we're drafting, which legal counsel, as opposed to a drafter...?

Your ruling related to the fact that a drafter was giving third-hand and second-hand comments or hearsay comments, if you want to call it that, from someone else. We didn't have the benefit of hearing them directly.

As a member of this committee, if I wanted to make an amendment, does it have to be done, as you're telling me, by naming a particular person who is only approved for this committee?

Secondly, do I understand correctly that the issue is on fumes? Is Mr. Laframboise criticizing the ruling because the inclusion of the word “fumes” is not acceptable?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I can only comment on the fact that right now we are reviewing a document that is third party. The comments by Mr. DesCôteaux are not the comments of the two people in the document.

I would have to say that if we're going to submit a document with someone else's comments, we should contact those people to ask if they stand by the comments that are attributed to them. It's what we're trying to decide on here.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

My question to you, Mr. Chair, was exactly that.

If a letter had come from those two people, would it have made a difference? If their opinions had been directly expressed in written form, would it have made a difference?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Legal counsel reviews these and collectively makes a decision, and that is the decision I put forward today.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, could we deal with the point of order? We're debating the merits of Mr. Laframboise's motion right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I only want to talk about what Canadians want. Canadians see the filibustering that's going on right now.

We have 35 to 40 minutes to get this bill passed and out of the House. There are three clauses left to do. We have some compromises in front of us, some good language, and some other compromises that have come forward. Can we talk about the issue at hand, which is a bill that the rail industry and Canadians want to have passed through this committee and through this House?

We have 35 minutes to do it before we have to wait two months to get to the next stage. I would like to see it happen, but the reality is that I don't think there's going to be unanimous consent to open it up again.

We can do it procedurally, but we really have the guts of the situation right here in front of us, Mr. Chair. We've tried to come up with compromises.

Mr. McGuinty, I would suggest that none of your Liberal amendments are out of order. They'd come in later on and could maybe be encompassed here. We would certainly be open to any amendments you'd propose in relation to the consolidation we've done with the Bloc, the NDP, and you.

But let's deal with the nuts and bolts. It's what we have in front of us. Let's get on with the show. Let's get this done for Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I would have to seek unanimous consent to revert back to the original amendments presented by the Bloc.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I would appeal your decision on requiring unanimous consent. I've certainly not seen a requirement for unanimous consent on any of the committees.

Procedurally, we were effectively on Mr. Laframboise's amendment.

I'll appeal the decision, which does not require unanimous consent. I appeal the decision of the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Shall the chairperson's decision be sustained?

We will revert back to Mr. Laframboise's amendments.

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

Mr. Chair, with respect, I want to put objections on the record. I do not believe that procedurally you can rule out of order a procedural order by the chair. I do not believe that is possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The committee can appeal the decision of the chair. We'll revert back to amendment BQ-4.

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

I am submitting the amendment to you. We discussed this. I insist that this must deal with the noise, vibrations and emanations from the railways that are being built or run. This is what our amendment to section 95.1 means to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Actually, we'll revert back to Mr. Laframboise to challenge. We're actually going back to the challenge to the chair on my ruling of the inadmissibility of your amendment.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, could we have that read into the record now, in French, by someone who speaks French here—hopefully, the clerk—so that I can hear it?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Reading it in is also for posterity, for the public.