Transport Committee on May 30th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I think I read a consensus around the table that reflects Mr. Bélanger's views, and that is that we have accepted certain amendments so far that address the following issues: first, the question of the standard, the highest standard of safety and security; secondly, that the minister at all times retains the authority to establish, to update those standards; and thirdly, that the minister doesn't devolve any of that authority to anybody who doesn't meet those conditions.

I recognize that this causes a little bit of an improvement, but I noted that Mr. Jean said okay, they would make proposed paragraph 5.31(1)(a) a little bit more positive, and I would suggest, for example, that after the proposed subsection 5.31(1.1) we eliminate everything that's there and put in “consistent with the highest standards of safety and security established by the minister”, and then carry on.

There are a couple of other proposed subsections there that don't address the issue of devolving that authority, which I think people recognize as something that has to be done, with that line of obligation that--and I'm not sure I have the language just yet, Mr. Reinhardt--really does say that at any time the minister can revoke the designation.

That's not the correct language I'm looking for, Mr. Reinhardt, but I'm really saying that at one point or another the designated organization can cease to be designated if it doesn't meet the standards the minister has already set. I think the clauses in the bill, as it exists, notwithstanding the amendment proposed by the government under G-2, don't make that connection. There isn't that chain.

Madam Stanfield, I know you're looking at me--and I hope that means you're listening, actually--and you're probably wondering where I'm going with this. I don't want to constrain the minister or put down everything that he or she must do with the designated organizations, but I'd like to have, in those proposed subsections, the indication that Transport Canada does the oversight of the designated organizations and that they are responsible to the department and the minister. I don't think that's clear, and that's why I think Mr. Bélanger was proposing that if you can't make that clear and you can't show that we're not devolving things off willy-nilly, then this isn't an amendment that we could support.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am speaking to my position and I want to move a motion to that end. You can work it in, because we're running out of time and I don't want to hold up the committee proceedings. I want people to feel comfortable.

I move that clause 12 come into force 36 months, or 3 years, after this legislation comes into force. No doubt, Ms. Stanfield can tell us how to draft this text.

Personally, I truly believe that this is logical. The problem is that we need to talk about it and the department needs the time. Even you, Mr. Reinhardt, told me that the minister was not yet ready. A three-year delay would give him the opportunity to get what he needed. The message we will be sending to people in the industry is that those who have worked hard may continue to do so. Ultimately, we are going to try to accommodate all of this one day. I am aware that these are likely above-average standards and that there is a way to improve the existing system. I am aware that the purpose is to improve the existing system.

The problem with designated organizations is that they are mentioned in a bill dealing with security management systems. This is somewhat problematic for us. I know that security management systems will have improved three years from now and it will be a matter of choosing the designated organizations. That is why I am asking this. If we first vote to have this clause come into force in three years, we could then discuss each of these clauses. I want to discuss both Mr. Bélanger and Mr. Julian's motions. I have no problem with that. Since this part of the legislation will not immediately come into force, we would have some latitude in considering it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

So, Monsieur Laframboise, you're making a subamendment, a friendly amendment. For my clarification, where exactly does that fall?

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

Clause 12.

Such a clause is usually found at the end of a bill, I believe. There can be a clause indicating that the bill will come into force at a later date. I believe that this clause is typically found at the end of a bill.

[Susan Stanfield]

The drafters could do that. It's clause 49 of the bill, the coming into force, the very last provision in the bill. It says:

The provisions of this Act come into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

So other provisions of the bill could be brought into force immediately upon royal assent, or shortly thereafter, and the provisions dealing with designation could be brought in at a later date. There is no problem with doing that.

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

Exactly. So, it should be indicated at the end of the bill. I would like us to resolve this now. I don't have a problem with including in clause 49 that clause 12 will come into force 36 months after the legislation comes into force, but we would need to agree right away amongst ourselves to include this at the end of the bill. If we are in agreement, we can discuss the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

I would actually agree to take that friendly amendment.

I would also agree, if Mr. Volpe is prepared to make a friendly amendment—with “consistent with the highest standards of safety and security”. I certainly think that is appropriate as well, which would satisfy, in part at least, Mr. Julian's position on paragraph (a) at the end, in relation to the high risk. He had suggested that after “subsection (1.1)” we would put in “consistent with the highest standards of safety and security”—

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

“Established by the Minister”.

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

“Established by the Minister”. And I would certainly take that as a friendly amendment as well.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you for that.

As I was reading some of those proposed subsections, I thought there would have to be some modification in the language there to make it consistent with that. That's why I said that I didn't have the exact wording right then and there, but it seemed to me that it would be language that would satisfy the concerns of my colleague Mr. Bélanger and other colleagues in the other two parties. It might even satisfy some of your concerns. But unfortunately I'm not equipped to do that at this moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chairman, there are some questions that have been asked to which I think we'll need some answers, depending on how this goes, in terms of paragraph (b) of G-2, and what is not covered in that. I've asked those questions.

Might I suggest that now is maybe the time to consider moving to something else, in the sense that it would also allow people who may be drafting either friendly or formal amendments the time to do so? It sort of worked at the start of the meeting that we'd had a couple of days to look at proposed section 4.2, if you recall. I suspect that having the time between now and the continuation on this might be beneficial.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Comments?

Mr. Jean.

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

I'd like to call the vote, Mr. Chairman.

If they're not prepared to make a friendly amendment, I would certainly take Mr. Laframboise...and deal with the matter, deal with the clause. We've discussed this for 40 minutes, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, Mr. Bélanger's proposal and Mr. Volpe's comments are both very apt.

This is the heart of what some people had perceived as the difficulty with the bill, so it would make sense to take the time to do the drafting that Mr. Volpe suggested, take the time, as Mr. Bélanger suggested, to have some thought given to this clause and then come back to it next Monday, because if we start going through amendments, we're certainly here for another hour, and we haven't done the estimates. There's a whole whack of other things in G-2 that have to be addressed as well.

I think Mr. Bélanger's point that this is the right time to suspend the clause-by-clause consideration and come back to it on Monday is an apt one. I think Mr. Jean's proposal that we simply start ramming through and voting on this is inappropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Mr. Chair, we've been discussing one clause for 40 minutes. I'm not ramming through anything. We've had almost a month to go through this clause and make changes and make suggestions. Again, we have three years from the date of this particular bill being proclaimed to make any changes or any recommendations that we would suggest to it.

It's a good clause and I would suggest Mr. Laframboise has a good amendment and I would ask for the vote on it--unless, of course, Mr. Laframboise is not going to support me. Then I don't want the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Is there any comment?

Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I want to ask the officials a question—and I don't mean to draw them into a political discussion, by any means. So if I cross the line, do say so.

In my observations, I talked about finding the appropriate language to link one of the proposed subsections in that particular amendment with the amendment made by the government. Do you find that to be an acceptable approach to preserve the integrity of the entire amendment? Is it a feasible thing to do--from a technical point of view, not from a political point of view?

[Franz Reinhardt]

Do you mean working with the current amendment G-2?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Yes, working with G-2, plus what's already contained in the bill, as I read it.