Evidence of meeting #55 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 sms.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
When an issue is debated, may a motion be moved?
6 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I would move a motion at this time, Mr. Chair, that we indeed table the existing amendment, move to new amendment G-3, and limit the debate on G-3 to two minutes per party.
I'll actually take off the two-minute issue and ask that we move straight to amendment G-3.
6 p.m.
Conservative
6 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
You're asking for a tabling and not necessarily a motion.
We have NDP-8.3 on the floor. Is there any more debate on it, or can we move on the question?
Mr. Bell.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
I want to clarify this. If NDP-8.3 creates a paragraph (d), I go back to my question. Am I correct in understanding that the “or” in paragraph (b) would be moved down to (c)?
6 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Yes, absolutely.
Amendment NDP-8.3 is on the floor. All those in favour of the motion?
Mr. Jean.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
We haven't closed the discussion. I haven't had an opportunity to address NDP-8.3. I'd like to hear from the department as to what their position is on NDP-8.3.
6 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Yes. The impact of going ahead with NDP-8.3 is to allow access to information to apply, because that act of Parliament is access to information. It has exactly the same result as the others, and you have voted against the first one. I think this is of utmost importance.
No. You have withdrawn it, with all due respect, and I appreciate that.
But this one amounts to saying that access to information will apply.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
For clarification, Mr. Chairman, as prescribed in the bill we're dealing with, if the bill we're dealing with has certain restrictions, they will be maintained, won't they?
6 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
The way it is spelled out now, the information is required to be disclosed under an act of Parliament. Access to information being an act of Parliament, the information will be required to be disclosed. This is usually the form used by ATIP to allow the application of ATIP on all the other legislation, except where there is specific protection. It's why we have to be very careful.
June 4th, 2007 / 6 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
But you have specific references in this case, in Bill C-6, which will become the Aeronautics Act. Perhaps we could have an answer from Justice.
6 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
I don't understand your question, Mr. Bélanger.
6 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Perhaps I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that if such an amendment is adopted for whatever restrictions might be contained in Bill C-6, the Aeronautics Act would therefore not apply and all the information must be divulged?
6:05 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Let's say we give the protection under ATIP, and at the same time you say the information is required to be disclosed under another act of Parliament. It would say ATIP will allow the release, but on the other hand, you're putting in protection under schedule 2. It would be contradictory.
Susan, am I correct?
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The kind of response we're getting now brings me back to 45 minutes ago, when I had asked for all of those items to be grouped so that we could deal with them in a fashion that would make a certain amount of procedural sense.
In my view at the time—and I'm sorry to be repetitive—amendment G-3 provided us with an opportunity to discuss the substance and direction of this entire proposed section. While on basic principle people couldn't agree with my previous intervention, as I made it, what we're being told now is that we could be contradicting ourselves as we go forward. So the discussion that we might have, for example, on a subsequent amendment G-3 might compel us to come back to revisit this particular issue.
If that's what I hear Mr. Reinhardt say, then I think the legislative clerk and the clerk might want to help us make a decision as to whether we should group the balance of these amendments, which would have been considered with amendment BQ-16, as the most appropriate way to deal with these matters. Otherwise, we'll be reviewing philosophical positions on every single amendment. When they're isolated, they all make sense, but these are all grouped together in order for us to come to a final understanding of a particular clause—not the bill itself, but a particular clause under the bill.
I'd ask you to consult with your legislative clerk and clerk to see whether you can help committee members around the table fulfil their democratic obligations by doing this in a procedurally correct fashion that will bring us to a decision that will not contradict another decision.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you, Mr. Volpe.
I think what you're asking me is whether there is a willingness to forgo NDP amendments 8.3 and 9 and to deal with G-3.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I don't think there's going to be a unanimous willingness, but I'm asking you to look to the advice of the legislative clerk and the clerk about how to best proceed with these issues. In my view, they would have been dealt with together, as we have done with other groupings; these five items should have been grouped together so that we could have made all the points my colleagues from the other two parties have made so far and that the government in fact has made. Rather than repeat ourselves on issues that are similar or consequential, we should deal with them as one.
The best way to have started—I made a proposal—would have been amendment G-3. But now we're moving from items that are withdrawn or going to be changed, and then going back to amendment G-3 to reverse ourselves on an item, such as that, as Mr. Reinhardt says, “an act of Parliament” means ATIP. It doesn't mean “an” act of Parliament, meaning whichever one someone wants to choose. Quite frankly, that's problematic from the standpoint of a rational approach to making amendments to this bill.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move that we stand amendments NDP-8.3 and NDP-9 and proceed with amendment G-3 as presented today.