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.
Conservative
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Chairman, the amendment reads as follows:
(1.1) The Minister of Transport shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament, not later than March 31 in each year or, if that House is not then sitting, on any of the first 30 days next thereafter that the House is sitting, a list of the organizations designated under subsection (1).
We simply want to make sure that the list of organizations is known and published. In this way, the designated organizations will not remain hidden from Transport Canada, and will be known to the public.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I support the amendment by the Bloc Québécois. It is important to ensure public transparency. This amendment effectively does that.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
That was the same amendment as NDP-8, so that now slides off the table.
We will move to NDP-8.1 on page 39.
Mr. Julian.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
This is similar to the amendment we set aside last week. I don't know at this point whether we have a report coming forward that will deal with the issue of the override of the Canada Labour Code, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, and the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act.
It seems to me that the issues of those two amendments are parallel and should be discussed at the same time. I suggest we set that aside until we've had the discussion on the previous amendment.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I don't believe that's necessary, because we've yet to decide on the other one, whether or not we'll mention it. But once it's mentioned it will apply throughout the bill, so I don't believe that repeating it at various more strategic locations will be necessary. We'll have that debate. I don't think we need to add it here.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I agree. We don't have any problem with it going, but I think it's redundant. If it's going to apply to the other clause it's going to apply to all. We'll have that discussion. I think it can fall by the wayside, but it doesn't make any difference. If Mr. Julian is pressed with that particular motion, let's move them together because they're going to deal with the same thing anyway.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Bélanger and Mr. Jean are right. If we adopt the Bloc amendment that was put forth earlier in the clause-by-clause discussion and, for whatever reason, it isn't adopted, it will be absolutely pertinent and relevant to discuss this amendment. So I suggest we set it aside until we've had the initial discussion. Then if it is adopted I won't need to bring it forward.
(Amendment allowed to stand)
Conservative
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I move that Bill C-6, in clause 12, be amended by adding after line 9 in French, which is line 11 in English, on page 14, the following:
REVIEW 5.381(1) On the expiration of three years after the coming into force of this act, section 5.31 to 5.38 shall be referred to the committee of each House of Parliament that normally considers matters relating to air transport. (2) Each committee referred to in subsection (1) shall, as soon as practicable, undertake a comprehensive review of sections 5.31 to 5.38 and their operation and shall, within six months after the review is undertaken, submit a report to Parliament thereon, including such recommendations pertaining to the continuation of those sections and changes required therein as the committee may wish to make.
This means that every three years, sections 5.31 to 5.38 will have to be analyzed by the committees in charge of enforcement. This means that given the fact that the first part becomes effective three years after the effective date of the act, that is, in six years, which is three years after the effective date of these sections, they would be reviewed or analyzed again. Mr. Reinhardt, this aims at answering the questions that I just put to you. We must make sure that no designated organizations can be exempted from inspection.
I am not presuming anything. I just want to make sure that we do not entrust organizations that... This is not Transport Canada. I want you to understand this clearly. In our opinion, you are in charge of public safety. If we bring in an intermediary, although your objective is good inasmuch as it seeks to ensure a higher level of safety and to make those people accountable, perhaps the clients on the ground do not see it in the same way. People using these services or some members could have questions for the committee, as they might think that the designated organization is not working as intended. Therefore, we want to make sure that this is reviewed every three years. If everything is in order, the review will not take much time. If not, it will be more complicated.
That is the objective of this amendment.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm looking at G-6 on page 69.1, which may be a bit of a compromise on that. This would be a better one. It doesn't have specific time periods and it doesn't do some of the things that have been suggested, but it does allow for the Standing Committee on Transport.... It needs to have a friendly amendment to include the Senate, because it's not included in there.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Doesn't amendment BQ-15, in proposed subsection 5.381(1), make reference to “of each House?”
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
That's what I mean. So the BQ one seems to cover a timeframe and both Houses, does it not?
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Yes, but remember that the act will not have any effect until three years after it comes into force, under subclause 49(2). But amendment G-6 allows for review on just about any basis. For instance, if a matter comes forward from Judge Moshansky that is of some urgency, there is a provision there to study it immediately and report back to the House on it.