Evidence of meeting #53 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 review.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chairman, with respect to the comments made here, I would say it is quite natural when we talk about the purpose of the bill to provide that assurance, an assurance that the minister has that responsibility. It then stipulates that the minister may take measures.
I understand Mr. Bélanger's comment to the effect that the words "by regulation" may be somewhat too restrictive. The amendment could be changed and made less restrictive. As Mr. Laframboise was saying earlier when talking about a similar amendment, it is important that we set out exactly what we intend the purpose of this legislation to be. I am sure that if we were to consult Canadians on this, most of them would agree in saying that what we are trying to achieve with this is very important.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Comments? Any comments from the department on this?
Ms. Stanfield.
4:05 p.m.
Chief, Aviation Security Regulations, Department of Transport
If you read the existing section 4.2, you'll see that all the paragraphs listed in that provision start with a verb. So that's part of the problem with the “by regulation” at the end. You've already got these verbs at the beginning that say how the minister is going to do things in some cases--cooperate, investigate, undertake, promote. So it's strictly a drafting issue with the “by regulation” there. Plus, the regulatory authorities under this act, for safety, are in section 4.9, and you'll notice that the section 4.9 authorities are given to the Governor in Council. The effect that has is that it means that when the minister wants to propose a regulation, it has to go to Treasury Board before it gets approved. It's a higher level of regulation-making power than the minister making a regulation. You may want to take that into consideration as well if your concern is a level of parliamentary scrutiny. That's one of the issues with the “by regulation” at the end of that.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chairman, I would like to move a subamendment to NDP amendment 3.1, that would remove the words “by regulation” at the end of the section, in the French and English versions.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
So we have a subamendment proposed by Mr. Bélanger that would eliminate the last two words.
Mr. Jean.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm not sure if it makes sense. To me, it doesn't, but maybe I'm missing it. So in the discharge of the obligation, you're saying the minister may...?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Construct, operate, and maintain aerodromes, control and manage aircraft, and provide relating services.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
So it's giving him the option of how he does it, but telling him he has to do it.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I'd have to look at all of clause 4 just to make sure that's there. That's why we have legal people; they will tell us that. But that might work.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I support the subamendment for the stated reasons. It frames the amendment well.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you.
We have a subamendment to remove the last two words in both French and English.
(Subamendment agreed to)
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, just before we move on to the vote on the amendment, can the departments provide us their positions on that? Do they see any problems, especially from Justice's position?
4:10 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
First of all, by looking at all the amendments, you were removing paragraphs 4.2(1)(b) and (c). They need to remain there. You were going too deep.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
May 28th, 2007 / 4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chairman, this is why I need to see the entire act as it is now. I've left that in the office.
My understanding of what's being proposed here--Mr. Julian perhaps can help--is that this was to come at the first of all of these paragraphs. Basically I thought it was replacing lines 1 to 4, which is essentially....
Well, I understand what the question is and I can't answer it. I'll just wait until we get an answer.
