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.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
It would not be a bad idea to have two whole sections, because section 29 has more to do with specific complaints, which means that there is a specific complaint regarding...
I hope that we will keep amendment G-6 because it deals with complaints that anyone could file, and ask the committee to deal with the issue, whereas we want, additionally, that the industry knows that the committee will do a review. We want designated organizations to get the message that in fact, every three years, they will undergo a review. This will oblige them to interpret the legislation more strictly. Moreover, if an extraordinary complaint should come up, the committee could deal with the issue pursuant to what you propose in amendment G-6, on page 69.1 of the amendments.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I don't disagree with what Mr. Laframboise is trying to say, which is why I made the suggestion. In any event, it's not going to happen until those clauses of the bill have been put in place. By making it specific to that particular proposed section, we would comply with what Ms. Stanfield has told us, which is that you can stagger the implementation of the clauses of this bill. When the clause we are dealing with is implemented, that would be the beginning of the ticking of the clock, so to speak. That would be captured by that statement, just for greater certainty.
But in terms of when there are difficulties associated with the act, as I read this particular clause, those provisions are there for people to make the complaint they might make...and under the circumstances, this committee would feel comfortable with.
I've made the suggestion, Monsieur Laframboise, and I would like it to be a friendly amendment. I don't know whether the clerk or the researchers took note of the exact wording, but we might well make some progress right now by having a decision on that.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I agree with Mr. Laframboise. We are dealing with two completely different aspects. Clearly, it is important to have a structure for dealing with complaints. Amendment G-6 effectively fulfils this requirement. I support amendment BQ-15, but it does not have a mechanism that would oblige the government of the day... In three years, the government could be Conservative, or it could be Liberal or NDP. We never know. Therefore, the government will have to follow the committee's recommendations. We know very well that some recommendations that we make are not necessarily accepted.
If we look at NDP-8.2, we can see that the only difference is that the said section will be repealed, unless the committee recommends that it be maintained. I think that this mechanism is useful to force the government, no matter which party is in power at the time, to follow the transport committee's recommendations. This is the missing element. We can make reports or recommendations, but there is no mechanism to make sure that these recommendations are followed.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Mr. Volpe has suggested a friendly amendment, Monsieur Laframboise. Where it says “coming into force of this Act”, he would eliminate “this Act” and just refer to it as “sections 5.31 to 5.38”.
I would ask Monsieur Laframboise if he would accept that as a friendly--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Do you want me to continue reading?
It would read: “On the expiration of three years after the coming into force, sections 5.31 to 5.38 shall be referred to the committee of each House of Parliament that normally considers matters relating to air transport”.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
In French, it would read: "à l'expiration d'un délai de trois ans à compter de leur entrée en vigueur, les articles 5.31 sont déférés".
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
I think that we also need a small amendment in English to make the text more readable. We should do the same in English.
It's the same in English. I think it should say that “On the expiration of three years after the coming into force of this Act, sections 5.31 to 5.38...”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
The suggestion was to eliminate “this Act”, because we're talking specifically about those sections of the act, if I'm correct.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Then it should be “they shall be referred”; it's the sections that shall be referred.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chairman,
If you take the French as the lead here, the English would have to read: “On the expiration of three years after their coming into force, sections 5.31 to 5.38 shall be referred to...”. Then they'll be both be the same, anglais et français, and we won't have any confusion.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
It's a friendly amendment. So I think I'll just ask then, shall the amendment carry as changed?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
This brings us to amendment NDP-8.2, page 41. It's pretty much redundant, I would say.
Mr. Julian, do you have a comment?
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
The only component is that in a sense it would have to be reworded, given the amendment we've just adopted. It would add a new section. This section would be deemed revoked unless the committee recommends continuation.
Conservative