Transport Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2009

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I see that the committee is going to be stuck on this decision about whether the amendments are sufficiently comprehensive to address the intent of the bill, and whether in fact all of the intentions that we attribute to the bill have actually been raised.

The problem I have with this line of thought is that the motion, with all due to respect to Monsieur Laframboise, really says that we have all of these concerns, but we haven't been able to address them and therefore we should abandon the bill.

I'm going to accept the first part of his premise, and therefore move an amendment to his motion. That amendment you have before you. The language can be changed a little bit, but essentially, because people will agree that the--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

If I may, in order for you to propose this I believe Monsieur Laframboise has to remove his motion.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I'm presenting it as an amendment to his motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It's not seen as an amendment. It's seen as one of the options that are presented.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

No, not necessarily. Mr. Laframboise can view it as a friendly amendment, or he can view as an inimical amendment. Quite frankly, I think it can be an amendment to the motion. His thought process hasn't been completed. I don't know why you should interrupt his thought process from reaching its own maturity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The motion that we're debating is the motion from Monsieur Laframboise. Whether you call it an amendment or not, this would actually be a motion to support one of the options that were presented.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Would you at least allow me to say it so that everybody knows what it is you are deliberating on?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

By rule, I believe we have to debate the motion that's on the floor.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

That's what I'm doing. I'm debating his motion.

Monsieur Laframboise has asked the committee to report back to the House and say that this legislation does not merit any further discussion. What I would propose in amendment to that is given that he has found that there are sufficient drawbacks, which he has attempted to address with amendments, as have others, what we do is advise the government that we would like a 30-day extension while they prepare legislation to address all of those drawbacks.

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

You were the transport minister once, right, and you didn't--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I would have to go back to my original comment. It's not an amendment. It's a new motion with a different concept. We have to stay on the motion that's been presented.

Mr. Jean, you're up.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Just for clarification, just so we can address it, I note for Mr. Jean and others that all Italians look the same, but no, I was not the Minister of Transport. It was another Italian guy.

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

The member from six feet under, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean, please.

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

Mr. Chair, with respect, we do see that there are many issues and have been many issues in relation to this bill. It has been the government's position all along that there are fundamental flaws with this particular proposed piece of legislation. As Mr. Laframboise said, he tried to find an opportunity to make the bill acceptable by the amendments, which were then again ruled out of order because they are out of order.

The most important thing to recognize is that this particular piece of legislation, in my mind and I think in Monsieur Laframboise's mind and many others', blames the airlines for all steps in the chain of supply of passengers, even if it is not truly their fault. That's the fundamental flaw with this, and that is what Monsieur Laframboise has dealt with.

I think there are more fundamental flaws, but notwithstanding that, Mr. Chair, clearly we have all had an opportunity to speak here today many times about this. I'm going to call for the question. I would ask for the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I can appreciate that the parliamentary secretary would like to rush this motion forward, but the fact that you, as chairman, ruled that the amendments by the Liberal Party and indeed the amendments by the NDP, save for two minor exceptions, were in order is clear evidence for everybody who is listening or following the debate of this committee that the bill can be improved, as is normally done by committees when there are items of legislation before them. The fact that committees would propose amendments does not necessarily mean the legislation is wrong. It simply means that part of the parliamentary debate process and the decision-making process receives the fine tuning that committees were structured to provide. So I reject completely out of hand the observation that the bill is so flawed that it requires amendments.

The reason that amendments were proposed was to address some of the concerns by the same carriers who said the bill is so flawed they didn't want to have anything to do with it. Our amendments, and I don't want to judge the NDP's amendments, go to the issue of who is responsible under law, the law that the carriers themselves observe when they fly into Europe. Our amendments go into trying to give a reasonable understanding of how the penalties will be addressed, even though in Europe there is no such exception.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We have a vote that's being called right now. I need the permission of the committee either to continue--

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

To either do what, I'm sorry...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It's a 30-minute vote. With the will of the committee, we're able to extend this debate now or we can suspend and come back after the vote until 5:30, or we can adjourn now.

I have Mr. Bevington on my list, but I have to know what the will of the committee is on that.

Mr. Jean.

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

It's a 30-minute bell. I was going to suggest that we deal with it for 15 minutes and at that time the chair suspends. All it takes is six minutes to get from here to the House.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

My understanding of the way the clock works, Mr. Chairman--and you're of course going to make a decision--is that if we interrupt this hearing at this time, which is 40 minutes into the discussion, it would mean that when we restart the hearings we will complete the remainder of the two-hour time period.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That is subject to the will of the committee. Normally it would end at 5:30.

Any other comments?

Is it the will of the committee to continue for another 15 minutes? Agreed? Okay.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I think I had the floor.