Evidence of meeting #38 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Order, please.
Thank you, and welcome to meeting number 38 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, May 13, 2009, we continue our study of Bill C-310, an act to provide certain rights to air passengers.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Before you proceed, you know I've had a motion before this committee for quite some time on the procurement practices of VIA Rail. I'm wondering whether you are planning to make some time before the end of the meeting for that motion. Did you want to go right after the meeting, or would you like to do it at the beginning?
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
It is on the agenda as the second part of the business, but I take direction from the committee.
Go ahead, Mr. Jean.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
The government side would prefer setting aside time to deal with that at the end of the committee meeting.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Are there any other comments?
Okay. Well, then, we'll proceed.
I have to advise the committee that as we have been faced with this deadline, it is now upon us at today's meeting, before the day is out, to decide on one of the four options as to what we will do with Bill C-310. I think I've made the committee aware of the options, but I will go through them once more just for the record.
Option number one is that we can report the bill with or without amendments by November 25. Option number two is that we can do no report, and then the bill is deemed reported without amendment on November 25. Option number three is that we can report requesting a 30-day extension, with reasons. Option number four is that we can report that the bill will be not further proceeded with, with reasons.
I put that out there because we do have to make these decisions as to how we proceed.
Go ahead, Monsieur Laframboise.
3:35 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Chair, the important thing to me is that you have received the amendments from the Bloc Québécois and all the parties. I would like you to confirm that the amendments are in order. It is important that I know before making a decision and making a choice, whether my amendments are in order or not. We could take the opportunity to let the other parties know whether their amendments are in order.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I just wanted to verify the rules, and I cannot give you that information until we move with the amendments, simply because it has to be moved before it can be decided.
Go ahead, Mr. Volpe.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Chairman, I suspect that we may use up a lot of time in making these determinations one after another after another, so I'm going to propose something that might make things go a little bit more quickly. If it's possible, we could move all of the amendments at once, and then see if you can make a decision on that basis. Then we can proceed with them one at a time, or not, as the case may be.
Since we are going to await your decision anyway, if it's procedurally correct, then I'd be prepared to make such a motion. If it is not, then I think I'd like to have a supplementary view on what we should do.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I have been advised that if Mr. Laframboise chooses to hear the decision as to his amendments, with the will of the committee I can actually provide that information. I'm sorry for making a wrong statement at the beginning. If the committee is okay with that, I can--
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Mr. Laframboise, you have submitted three amendments. The first amendment, BQ-1, has been ruled out of order, and BQ-2, the second amendment, is also out of order. BQ-3 is deemed also out of order.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
That information having been provided, Mr. Chairman, we have provided a couple of amendments as well. I'd be interested in the rationale--in a moment, though. I'm wondering whether you can provide us with the same views with respect to the admissibility of the Liberal amendments proposed. Since there are only two, that should be pretty quick.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you, and I will advise that the Liberal amendments are in order and acceptable, but they are in conflict with some of the NDP motions, which would either rule them in conflict or not applicable if the preceding amendments from the NDP were acceptable. An example I'll give you is that NDP-7 and L-2 are basically identical. The NDP presents first, which would deem the Liberal one redundant. And amendment L-1 is in conflict with two of the NDP amendments, so it wouldn't be proceeded with if those previous amendments were accepted.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
In this case, the NDP amendment would pre-empt L-1. Amendment L-2 would be identical to NDP-7, so it would be again redundant. There are only two.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Well, NDP-2 and L-1 are not identical. I beg to differ. I think they address two different issues.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
That's the one that we wouldn't be able to proceed with if NDP-2 and NDP-3 were accepted, because there would be a line conflict. That's what I'm saying.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I think we can address that quickly enough. But I have one question, and I'm sure Mr. Laframboise would probably ask the question himself, about why some of the Bloc amendments are unacceptable.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Basically, the answer to all three is the same. It's the opinion of the chair that by mandating Transport Canada to determine the responsibility and obligations of certain organizations, it's a completely new concept that's beyond the scope of the original bill, and therefore inadmissible.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
But the scope of the bill is to try to get the regulator to address the issues associated with passenger rights. So they still address the role of the regulator in legislation. It's only for us.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
The challenge I have is we're now getting into debate on something the committee has asked me is admissible or not. If we want to go to amendments, we would have to introduce it, and I could.... Basically, by giving a new mandate to Transport Canada, it takes away the scope of the bill as it was originally presented. We're actually delegating another authority to make that decision, and that wasn't the original scope of the bill.
Mr. Laframboise.