Evidence of meeting #54 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 vote.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:20 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
We have verified the situation with respect to numbering, and (1.1) would be okay.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
So the amendment would follow and would be classified as proposed subsection (1.1).
Based on comments from all members, it's my understanding that this wouldn't impose a new cost to the government.
Mr. Jean.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I object, Mr. Chair. It does indeed suggest it with the word “establish”. I have been asking for the floor for a while to show the members that we could take G-1 and make a few wording changes to confirm that. I think that would satisfy the members even more than the current suggestion. I know it's in a different context, but it suggests—
It would say: The Minister of Transport shall verify whether sufficient resources are in place for that Minister to carry out the highest level of oversight of aviation safety and security.
If it's already established, then we need oversight. We don't need “establish” in there. And “establish” certainly suggests royal recommendation. Whether it does or not, I'm suggesting to Mr. Laframboise and all members that it goes beyond what you're suggesting. It actually makes sure there are sufficient resources.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
No. The objective is to have an oversight and surveillance program. You are talking about having the financial resources required to monitor safety. That does not mean that there will be an oversight and surveillance program.
We want to maintain the existing oversight and surveillance program. If you tell me you want to apply just amendment G-1, that suggests that you do not intend to maintain an oversight and surveillance program. I thought that the minister did not want to change the number of inspectors. If we really want to maintain a program of this type, we have to say so in the bill. Then it will be clear for everyone.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I understand his concern and agree, except we should take out “establish a program”. A friendly amendment would be: “The minister shall maintain the existing oversight program”. If it's already there it doesn't need to be established, and “establish” does require royal recommendation.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I was under the impression that we were taking “establish a program” out, from my interpretation of Mr. Laframboise....
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Julian, but in my mind it suggests that another program be established beyond the current one that has been in place for some period of time. That's the difficulty I have. It does require a royal recommendation. It's suggesting another kind of program. I suggest that most taxpayers don't want more bureaucracy unless it's necessary, and it's not necessary based on the current program.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Just before I recognize Mr. Laframboise, if it does say “establish a program” it would be out of order.
I'm sorry, I had Mr. Julian on the list first and then Mr. Laframboise. The terminology “establish the program” is the concern. Establishing a program suggests new money.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
“Establish” can also mean ensuring an obligation, so I think there are two ways of interpreting that clause. In other parts of legislation you'll see similar language. The obligation is there for that program to be in place. I do not think there is any incongruity between what Mr. Laframboise has offered and our intention to make sure the obligation to maintain the safety programs is in place.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I would like to move a friendly amendment.
I move that the words "shall establish" be replaced by the words "shall maintain". So the amendment would then read as follows: "The Minister shall maintain a program for the oversight and surveillance of aviation safety in order to achieve the highest level of safety established by the Minister."
In this way, if there is already a program in place, the minister will maintain it. The obligation to maintain the program is the important thing.
If you agree with that, I too would accept this version.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I appreciate your trying to find that common ground. It would have to be considered either a friendly amendment or a subamendment. You can't, unfortunately, amend your amendment.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I'm fine about the amendment itself, but if there's an opportunity to explore—I want to come back afterwards.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you. We have a friendly amendment that I will now read for clarification:
The Minister shall maintain a program for the oversight and surveillance of aviation safety in order to achieve the highest level of safety established by the Minister.
Mr. Laframboise.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
The French version would be as follows: "Le ministre doit maintenir un programme de surveillance—". I do not know how it would be worded in English.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
In the French side, that's what I'm looking at, doit maintenir. We've taken “establish” out. We're saying “shall maintain a program”, which in the French is doit maintenir.
Are you comfortable with that, Mr. Laframboise?
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
So we'll vote on the amendment. It was a friendly amendment so it wouldn't be a subamendment.
(Amendment agreed to)