Evidence of meeting #52 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
What I'm understanding is that once we get through clause-by-clause consideration, there may be some changes made to the first clause, and by putting it off to the end.... It's entirely up to the committee, though. It's a committee decision.
Please go ahead, Monsieur Laframboise.
3:35 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Chair, when the analysis is done and the entire document is sent to the research branch, we must also bear in mind that amendments are submitted by other parties. I agree we should start with clause 1. That is not a problem. The position adopted by the government does not in any way change my opinion. I am ready to start with clause 1.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'm only going to entertain a couple more comments.
Mr. Fast is next.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Chair, I want to assure Mr. Bélanger that I think the reverse is true. If we now settle upon this clause, and let's say it's a disputed clause and there are issues arising out of it that should actually wait until we've discussed the rest of the bill, then I think we're doing a disservice and we're actually putting the cart before the horse.
We've actually gone through the whole bill, as I'm sure you have as well. We've reviewed it very carefully and we feel this particular clause likely should wait for the outcome of the rest of the clauses. We're not proposing that any other clause be delayed or postponed. This is the only one. What we're trying to avoid is unintended consequences. That's the only purpose here. I was hoping there'd be some goodwill at this table, because Mr. Bélanger, I know, has raised that as an issue, and even Mr. Julian. Well, let's cooperate with each other to move forward with the bill, which hopefully will improve aviation safety in Canada.
3:40 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I would very much like to cooperate, but it was not me who started the bill by listing the definitions in clause 1, it was the government. As I said, I am prepared to discuss this clause. The research has been done, all the amendments submitted by all parties, including the government's amendments, have been weighed and we are ready to begin with clause 1.
Mr. Fast tells us that only one clause will be studied before clause 1, but I do not feel confident about Mr. Fast's word. He has changed his mind a few times along the way.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, I agree with Mr. Laframboise. We had Mr. Jean who first said he did not want to discuss this clause precisely because it could change the direction of the bill. He then said it was not serious, that perhaps it was something that could be discussed later on. Those two comments completely contradict one another. What Mr. Laframboise and Mr. Bélanger said makes sense. We must start at the beginning. Let us list the definitions first and then proceed to the clause by clause. That makes more sense. That would be the normal procedure. Acting in good faith, the government would agree that it makes sense to proceed in this way.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'd like to hear from the department, but before that, I do want to say that this is not normal. There is no normalcy. I know we didn't do this with Bill C-30; we didn't do it with Bill C-38. I know that in other jurisdictions across Canada they wait and leave the definition and the name of the act until the last. I understand that to be the case in Manitoba and in many other jurisdictions.
Quite frankly, what Mr. Fast said is correct. We did go through the bill extensively, and we found very few problems with the amendments, to be blunt. We think we can go through this with cooperation and find some results. We're not asking for pie in the sky; we're simply asking for one particular clause to be put to the end until the rest of the clauses are dealt with.
Could we hear from the department and the legal counsel on the ramifications of dealing with it at this stage, and whether or not it would be advantageous to put it to the end?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
May I propose a solution to this, which is that we deal with it, but we, as the committee, formally reserve the right to review it once we're done with the rest of the bill if there's a need to do so at that time? That way we can address both, do it in the order they're presented. As a committee, if we agree to reserve the right to look at it once we're through it, I'd be quite prepared to do that. I don't want us to get bogged down here, right away, on a procedural matter.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I will just suggest to the committee that if we do proceed with Monsieur Bélanger's comment, we would need unanimous consent to come back to clause 1, as a committee, to review it again at the end of the process.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Mr. Bélanger has asked if there would be unanimous consent--and I'm going to paraphrase--that if at the end of the clause-by-clause process we find the definition in clause 1 doesn't meet all the requirements of the other parts of the bill, we would reopen it to redefine it to meet those requirements.
Would there be agreement at this table today to do that?
(Motion agreed to)
(On clause 1)
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I will advise the committee that we did receive three amendments and we've determined that they're all identical. Mr. Laframboise's amendment came forward first, so I would start with Mr. Laframboise to put the motion on the floor.
Mr. Julian.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
The French texts are exactly the same, you're absolutely right, but the English text is not. I just wanted, for the record, to state that for the Bloc amendment, what it should state in English is “'management system' means a documented process for managing risk”.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I'm making purely a comment on the translation because--
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I think we have to put it on the table before we can actually discuss that, just as a matter of process.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
What I'm suggesting, Mr. Chair, is that the copy in French is exactly the same in all three cases. In English, however, the definition has changed. So you have two different motions in English and one in French. That's why I would suggest that the appropriate way to define it is a “ process for managing risk” in the English copy of the Bloc motion.
It's not Monsieur Laframboise's fault. The French text is identical and effective. But there's been obviously a glitch. Maybe two different translators worked on different motions.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
In order for that to become part of the discussion, we do have to ask Monsieur Laframboise to table the motion. If he wants to make that change in that noticed correction on the English side, then we would debate it that way. But until he puts it on the floor--
Monsieur Laframboise.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I will try to cooperate. Does the English version of the Liberal motion match the French version, Mr. Julian?
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
No, they are different. It is the same text in French, but there are two versions in English.