Transport Committee on June 8th, 2006

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

I'm not happy with the proposed amendment. If certain criteria have been established, then they should be included. That's my position.

If you use the words “only”, then they should all be listed. If you delete the word “only”, it lends a certain tone to the act. If one particular criteria is not listed, that's opens to the door to legal challenges and that would make the situation even worse.

Therefore, if we do want some criteria in place, let's sit down and draw up a complete list. Otherwise, let's put our trust in the minister. I would opt for the latter course of action and I would defer to Mr. Harvey's explanations in this case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

With that, I will call the vote.

(Amendment negatived)

(Clause 23 agreed to)

(Clauses 24 to 31 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 32--Capacity and powers)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We have amendment NDP-9. I want to make sure everybody has that in front of them.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mercifully, this is my last amendment.

This one is specific to a situation we have witnessed in Windsor, but I think it can happen in other areas. I'll read the amendment quickly:

For greater certainty, despite the provisions of any letters patent of a corporation established under this Act, where Parliament has authorized in an Act referenced in the Schedule a particular mode of transportation used for an international bridge or tunnel, that the mode of use cannot be changed by a corporation except upon application pursuant to this Act.

The reason for it is that we have in my community a rail tunnel, and there has been a proposition that the rail tunnel be converted to a truck tunnel. It's the CP Rail tunnel I'm talking about in particular. For members, it's about 100 years old. There are actually two tunnels. They're small, single-sleeve tunnels that can only accommodate single-stacking rail at the moment. Double-stackers go through Sarnia.

Now there is a proposition that those tunnel tubes be converted for transport trucks. This has resulted in considerable controversy, not just in terms of the use of that facility in its on-the-spot location, but also in terms of the reciprocal effect of getting a new route to that facility in order to cross, getting a customs facility, and a whole series of other planning issues. The amendment here is just to make sure that the use of the international bridge and tunnel for the particular modes of transportation it's built and designed for, and of the subsequent infrastructure around it, is made consistent. That's why this specific element is in the clause.

I would ask for any comments, sir.

[Éric Harvey]

I think the provisions of the bill are in fact consistent with what you're after, because if you read the definition of “alterations”, you'll read that it includes “a conversion, an extension, and a change in the use”. Conversion is specifically what you referred to I think in your example of taking a rail tunnel and making it a truck tunnel or a road tunnel. That conversion is an alteration that requires GIC approval under clause 6.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Okay. I had to make sure I got that on the record. I can withdraw my amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I'm not trusting anything, I'm sorry. I've been through this....

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm going to ask, then, if clauses 32 through 37 can carry.

(Clauses 32 to 37 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 38—False statements or information)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We have government amendment G-3. Again I want to make sure everybody has it in front of them.

Mr. Jean, do you have any comments on this?

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

I think it's very straightforward. It's just to expand it somewhat, but there's not really any rocket science in what we're proposing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Harvey.

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

It's just a clerical “or”, as far as I can see.

[Éric Harvey]

In the current wording there's a reference to section 39; however, section 39 is divided into subsections, and as a result the drafters reminded me that to be accurate we should make this technical motion just to refer to the proper subsection.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Can I ask that amendment G-3 carry?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 38 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 39 to 42 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 43—Regulations)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We have another amendment, G-4. Does anyone want to make a comment on this?

Mr. Harvey.

[Éric Harvey]

This one was tabled to go with new clause 15.1. This motion was brought bearing in mind that new clause 15.1 would be added and that it was important to put it in the enforcement provisions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

What I'm going to do then is suggest we leave this one out until we get to new clause 15.1.

Mr. Jean.

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

I have made the changes and written it out. I'm not sure if it's been translated yet or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I've asked for it to be translated before we present it.

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

Sorry, Mr. Chair. I do have a question for the department. The original clause actually specifies section 26 as well, and I see it has been left out of this particular section, unless I'm reading it incorrectly.

The amendment to subparagraph 43(a)(ii) says “9, 13, 15.1 or” and the bill says “9, 13 or 26”. In the French version of the amendment it actually has 26, but it's been left out of the English version. I wonder if that was on purpose or accidental.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Is it on the next line?

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

It's not on the amendment itself.

[Evelyn Marcoux]

It's because it's on the other line below.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We are going to move past this right now and come back to it when we get amendment G-2 looked after.

(Clauses 44 and 45 agreed to)

(On clause 46--Issuance of notice of violation)