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.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
It has an amendment that's similar, except for subparagraph (v) of Mr. Julian's amendment.
I've looked at the items Mr. Jean suggested and I'm looking at the bill itself. The concerns that are expressed in subparagraph (v) of that amendment that's put forward by Mr. Julian, but not put forward by Mr. Laframboise and Mr. Volpe, are in my view already covered in the bill. As Mr. Reinhardt has indicated, under proposed section 5.392, the government is amending one of the items, and I think it captures the intent of that subparagraph, which is essentially to provide protection to those who offer the information without having to be concerned about any retribution.
I'm wondering whether we are spending a lot of time discussing the differences that are really.... They are not only not perceptible, they are, quite frankly, non-existent. The difference in that particular amendment is captured by another amendment and another proposed section of the bill.
I'm going to propose we deal with this. I don't have any discomfort in saying that we accept Mr. Laframboise's and not mine, because it's the same. I'm only asking that Mr. Julian accept the same and that we carry on, because his subparagraph (v) is dealt with in another place.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
That's why I suggested, Mr. Chair, that we stand this aside until the next meeting. Mr. Volpe makes an interesting case. There are about half a dozen areas where there's a difference between the two amendments. I think the best way to work through that is not to spend an hour going through each of the individual amendments and having discussion over each of them.
What Mr. Volpe says may be true, that the differences are relatively minor, but in some cases they're important. So that's why I suggest to you, Mr. Chair, standing it aside means that we save time on this later on. By moving on to the next amendment, we could come back to this and, I think, dispose of it fairly quickly at the next meeting.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, I've had a month to look at these amendments, three weeks at least. I'm asking for a vote. Let's carry on. They've got the regulations, which we provided to the other members, right in front of them. It is included in there. Indeed, if Mr. Julian had an issue with it, quite frankly, I would suggest he should have looked at it beforehand. We've looked at them. They seem identical. Mr. Volpe has said the same thing. I would ask for a vote.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I'm going to accept Mr. Volpe's recommendation. I would like Mr. Julian to go along with this as well, but he has the right to maintain his position. So I will accept your recommendation that we discuss amendment BQ-9, which is the same as your amendment.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
I've scanned these, and the only difference I can see with the NDP-3.3 is in the proposed addition of items 4.9(c.1)(i)(A) and 4.9(c.1)(i)(B), including the addition of the words “personally responsible” and “personally accountable”. In subparagraph (ii), after the words “the highest level of safety”, Mr. Julian has added “determined by the Minister”. Then there's subparagraph (v).
I'm comfortable with Mr. Volpe's recommendation.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Before we vote, I have a question to Ms. Stanfield. From a drafting perspective, when we have a statutory provision that purports to emulate what we already have in regulation but doesn't completely accurately emulate that, does that cause you some concern, in terms of a drafting issue?
4:40 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Department of Transport
Well, it could mean that your regulatory authority, for the regulations that you made, may no longer be within the authority of the regulation-making power. If your act provision or your act authority is narrower than the regulations that you've made, you could have a problem, because you can't make regulations broader than your regulation-making authority.
You need to look at that—whether or not your regulations are still valid.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Have you had a chance to compare the regulations and the Liberal amendment?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
I just don't want to get us into a drafting problem where after the fact we say, oh shoot, we've thrown the baby out with the bathwater here, and our regulations don't work.
4:40 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Department of Transport
Having read the proposals, my main concern would be that they may narrow down the minister's authority in the future to impose requirements in respect of safety management systems.
The only other question I have is in regard to amendment BQ-9 and amendment L-4, and item (A) under paragraph (c.1), subparagraph (i). In both of those amendments, but not in the NDP proposal, it appears to limit item (A) to, at this point, Nav Canada, whereas the NDP amendment is not so limited in respect to the appointment of an executive. That's just a question that occurred to me.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, are we discussing the Liberal amendment right now? Is that what's been agreed?
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
And what was the position of Mr. Volpe? I lost something in translation, English to English.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I'd propose that since the substance of the differences amongst the three is really contained in subparagraph (v) of the NDP motion, which is captured by a government amendment to clause 12 under proposed subsection 5.392(4), which really goes to the issue of whistle-blowing.
It is something that I think we can defer to that clause, understanding that we will cover it already with this, whether it's BQ-9 or L-4 or even NDP-3.3. Quite frankly, since BQ-9 and L-4 are almost identical--in fact they are--we should just deal with it.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
An hon. member
Sure.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Chair, is it the staff's position that the BQ amendment is unnecessary and unwarranted?
