Transport Committee on June 4th, 2007

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

Mr. Chairman, the thrust of G-6 on page 69.1 is not quite the same as BQ-15. I had some concerns and misgivings with that particular amendment, G-6, in that it could be seen as substituting the committee, in a way, for safety organizations or putting it in conflict with safety organizations. I'd be very careful there. There's nothing in here that is new in terms of committee authority. The committee has the authority to do what this says, but I'm a little concerned with the way it's formulated. But we can get back to that. It's not the same.

I think the other one is more specific, that three years after coming into force of this section, the committee will be asked to.... Whether they do it or not is up to them. So I'd stick to BQ-15 in terms of the intent. It is clearer and a little crisper, and this one could lead to some confusion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Further comment?

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

I'd like to hear from the department, if possible, very briefly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Reinhardt.

[Franz Reinhardt]

The way it reads in BQ-15 is “On the expiration of three years after the coming into force of this Act”, so that means in three years, at which point the designated organizations will not have even started to be authorized. That would not make sense. It would need to be amended to reflect the new situation, because otherwise it's going to be six years, you see.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

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

It could also say "from the effective date of the present article of the act". This would mean that the first review would take place after six years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe.

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

I believe this issue has been raised as well in another bill that has passed through the House, is before the Senate, and might come back. It's all a question of timing of when the bill actually comes into force as opposed to when it is proclaimed, which I think is what the substance of the disagreement might be.

So I look to Ms. Stanfield for a little bit of clarification. This committee has talked about the actual implementation of everything within about three years. We discussed that last week and we have a coming into force clause that's supposed to capture all the timeframes between now and when all the designated organizations will be able to get the ball rolling.

I'm wondering whether, from your perspective, legally and procedurally, the understanding that everybody should have by proposed subsection 5.38(1) is three years after the coming into force of the implemented act, or whether we're just talking about the proclamation of the act. The proclamation of the act will take place, as I understand procedures, once it has passed the other House and come back and everybody says, hey, this is kosher, let's go.

So if the intent of both the government and the other amendment by the Bloc is that it comes into play after things have been systemized, then I don't see any disharmony in the two. I would ask Mr. Laframboise to identify that.

Ms. Stanfield, what do you understand by these two?

[Susan Stanfield, Legal Counsel, Department of Transport]

Clause 49 is a coming into force clause, and as it's drafted right now, it states that the provisions of the act come into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.

So what that means is that this bill, even once it receives royal assent, will not be in force until there's an order in council stating that provisions come into force. That leaves you a lot of flexibility in terms of how you want to implement it. You can have it come into force almost immediately after royal assent, which was done with a previous amendment to the Aeronautics Act a few years ago, or you can stagger provisions. So you could have most of the act come in on one day on an order in council, and then stagger the coming into force for three years after those provisions come into force, or three years after royal assent, because you could time against royal assent or coming into force of provisions. Three years after royal assent, your provisions dealing with designated organizations would take effect.

It is my understanding that the desire is that three years after the implementation of the designated organization provisions, you would want to have a review. So that would be six years after royal assent, say, assuming that this--

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

Assuming that's the case, it could be seven or it could be....

[Susan Stanfield]

That's how I read this.

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

To all intents and purposes, then, there's really not much difference between G-6 and BQ-15. There isn't a difference in what's trying to be accomplished.

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

The position of the government would be that if it is the will of one of the parties to bring forward this particular amendment, then let's deal with it. Certainly it seems to be the case. We can deal with G-6 later on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

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

With regard to Mr. Volpe's question, honestly, the three years came up after this amendment was tabled. We want this to take place three years after the effective date of this part of the act. If everyone agrees with this, let us amend the text so that it states that it will take three years after the effective date of the said section.

[Franz Reinhardt]

Section 12.

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

The entire section 12?

[Franz Reinhardt]

No, not only section 12, there is more to it.

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

Yes, there is more to it.

[Franz Reinhardt]

The wording, Susan, would be...?

[Susan Stanfield]

It would be “three years after the coming into force of sections 5.31 to 5.38”.

[Franz Reinhardt]

Yes.

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

That is it.

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

I wonder whether Monsieur Laframboise and Mr. Jean would be happy to marry the two. Taking a look at BQ-15--if you'll indulge me for a moment--where it says in new proposed subsection 5.381(1), “On the expiration of three years after the coming into force of”, instead of saying “this Act”, simply say “sections 5.31 to 5.38”.