Evidence of meeting #57 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 employee.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:35 p.m.
Bloc
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
5:35 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
No, we decided that we would talk about it again at this time. Earlier you adopted clause 35, but we had decided to postpone discussion at the same time as that on G-6.
I'm told that BQ-15 was adopted. So that's perfect.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I think it's an excellent opportunity to say that we need a friendly amendment from somebody in order to include the Senate on this particular piece, if the other members wish to go forward with this clause. It actually reflects some of the comments we heard from other members, and indeed from at least two of the witnesses, and it is consistent with those discussions. But in order to reflect the proper purpose of this would be to include the Senate.
5:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Including the Senate is, but I have a reservation here, Mr. Chairman. My concern is that this, if adopted, could be seen as the standing committee of the House substituting itself for duly or legally mandated organizations or bodies, such as the Transportation Safety Board or others. I know what the committee has the ability to do; it can review any regulation under this act. But “either on its own initiative or on receiving a written complaint regarding a specific safety concern” is the line that bothers me.
One interpretation could be that upon receiving a written complaint, we must. I know we can do it on our own initiative, but if someone sends us a written complaint regarding a specific safety concern, you could read this and interpret it as meaning that the committee must usurp a mandate that is set in law for another agency of the Crown. That's my concern about this particular section.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Hearing Mr. Bélanger, I understand, because it's already in law. Everything it says is already there, in fact. Indeed, I understand the negative implications. I would be happy to withdraw this if it is the will of the committee to do so. I think it goes without saying, and it could in fact lead to some negative consequences, as Mr. Bélanger says.
5:35 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
It's interesting that G-6 has been maintained. I agree on that amendment. Mr. Reinhardt, you say it's already in the act?
June 11th, 2007 / 5:35 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
The committee always has the power to review everything pertaining to transportation. That's included in the committee's mandate.
5:35 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I find the amendment interesting. I agree on that. You want to add the Senate. I'm not the one who's going to move it.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
My understanding is that I cannot withdraw this without agreement.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I see what Mr. Bélanger is trying to say. There could be a mandate of another committee that indeed could lead to a complication between the two. Certainly, it could be argued that this committee would be the right one to study something, but it may be outside its purview. It might be the military that needs to study it. My preference at this stage, now that it has been brought to my attention by Mr. Bélanger, is not to have this. Of course, we have to deal with it, and I would ask for a vote.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
5:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
This is an amendment that actually makes a great deal of sense. We've been hearing from witnesses about oversight. We've been hearing about the importance of having a system of checks and balances. This is one of the things we need to have. We shouldn't be giving a blank cheque under this bill.
I'm a little confused by the government putting forward an amendment and then wanting to withdraw it. It just doesn't make sense. When they have bad stuff, they always push it forward. When it's good stuff, they want to withdraw it. What's wrong with this picture?
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
I think they listened, perhaps, to wise counsel from the opposition, in this case.
Mr. Bélanger.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chairman, I'm not changing my opinion on the difficulties this may give rise to. However, I thought we were going to entertain, at some point, from the government--perhaps if not today it could be at the report stage--a mandated review of this bill a few years hence. In my case, it would be a very welcome amendment for five, six, or seven years down the road. That has a great deal of appeal in the sense that it is mandated by law, and therefore it must happen at some point.
This just confirms that the House has the authority to do what it wants in terms of setting up committees, whether they're standing or not, and committees have some authority to initiate reviews or not. The difficulty, and I'm repeating myself, is in the way it's worded: the House may review any regulations made “either on its own initiative or on receiving a written complaint”. I know that it may, on receiving a written complaint, and I'm pretty sure that no committee would necessarily get going, but this could draw the committee into areas of debate, discussion, and investigation that it doesn't really want to be drawn into. It might invite a pile of letters from anyone who has a beef with Transport Canada or if there is a safety matter. The way it's worded, I expect it could create a situation that the committee, the House of Commons, and the Parliament of Canada don't want to have happen.
What I'd love to see, however, and I repeat, is a mandated review of the act five years from now, as is now being written into many acts, but we don't see this in this act.
5:40 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Clause 29 is nevertheless clear. We're saying “may”, not “shall”. That doesn't trouble me. Mr. Bélanger is acting as though he were going to take back power. That won't happen, so there's no problem.