Transport Committee on March 10th, 2009

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

I guess we'd be doing two things here, because we're going to be comparing two amendments. The fact that I actually proposed one would suggest that I have a particular bias.

My bias is predicated on the two hats I wear when I come to this committee: one as a member of the House of Commons who guards the authorities vested in the House jealously, and the other one as a member of the committee who guards the rights and responsibilities of the committee with great jealousy. But I don't get a chance to sit on a committee except by the grace of those who have the powers vested in them by party members, so I'm rather jealous about the one I can control.

Am I giving up one hat—the rather transient one—by supporting either one of these?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It is legal advice you're giving him, so feel free to bill him, too.

[Marie-France Dagenais]

I am actually a lawyer, so....

The way we do our consultation process in the directorate is quite extensive already. As I previously said, in section 30 of the current act there is a process that we don't necessarily have to follow, if you consider Treasury Board guidelines. But we do it, because we have a program that works very well: the industry is on board, we have a sharing agreement with the provinces and territories, and we consult a lot on our regulations already. What we don't want is to have to have all our regulations revisited by the committee, if everyone agrees on these kinds of regulations. That's one of the comments that....

Peter, do you have anything to add?

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

Peter, I'm on a roll. Just say yes.

[Peter Coyles]

Well, de facto you already have the ability to call witnesses in, if you wish, so you have the authority now. If you wanted to have people come in and present to you on issues they bring to your attention or otherwise in this committee, it is something that already exists for you. You've had many presentations in the past about regulations or proposed potential regulations that are coming forward in this committee, so you can do it now anyway.

I guess the question is whether you want to impose this because you feel it's not working well, or is it because you want to review something specifically? My personal opinion is that your focus is on policy and legislation and those kinds of notions for Canadians. If you want to include regulation into it, that's your choice, but it adds a burden of work for you that may or may not be applicable. As we say, we have 800 pages of regulations, 30,000 pages of standards.... You can be bogged down very quickly just by having these kinds of things being brought to your attention.

And you already—

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

Two words; Madame Dagenais said that this proposed section 27.11 is different from my amendment to proposed section 30 by two words. One uses “shall” and the other says “may”.

I don't worry about either one of them, except that if there is a “shall” that obligates somebody to impose something on me, is there a reciprocal “shall”, when the committee discharges its duty, on the government side? I didn't read that word “shall” on the reciprocal side anymore, because once it makes a recommendation to the House, that's it; it dies.

That's on Mr. Bevington's amendment, and it's pretty well the same on my amendment.

I want to know that I'm not giving up a substantive right by saying no to one and yes to the other, because I'm interested in exercising a right, provided that someone on the other side responds to my exercise of it. But I don't see a reciprocal obligation. Do you see one?

[Linda Wilson]

In terms of whether there is follow-up from the committee's review?

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

No. Were this committee to receive some of those regulations here, I don't see in that section--and I could be wrong, so I'm asking--an obligation by the government to accept what this committee says after its study.

[Linda Wilson]

No. As for the effect of the “shall”, in these sections Parliament has delegated to the Governor in Council the ability to make regulations and with the “shall” is then further delegating the regulations made by its delegate. It's delegating to this committee the power to review those regulations.

Yes, according to the text of the amendment, there is no requirement on the government and there's no report required to be laid in order for it to have any effect on the regulations that are being made. I believe the text says “once the regulation has been made”, not “prior” to it being made.

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

So in effect, if a regulation is gazetted and an appropriate time has been given for response, once that response is received, there is an incumbent obligation on the Governor in Council to review the interventions by stakeholders before proclaiming.

[Linda Wilson]

That's right.

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

Okay. But once that's been proclaimed and then it has yet another obligation to send it to this committee, the committee cannot impose a change on the Governor in Council.

[Linda Wilson]

No, not according to the way it's currently worded.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have Mr. Bevington, Mr. Jean, and Mr. Laframboise.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Once again, I'm kind of astounded by the witnesses here, with their interpretation of these two different amendments. It's not simply “shall” and “may”; it's the scope.

One amendment deals specifically with the transportation security clearances: when you make a regulation that's going to impact on Canadians, and potentially on the rights of Canadians, that shall go back to Parliament through a committee for referral, for understanding. When it comes to dealing with the rights of Canadians, this is what we as parliamentarians are here to maintain.

The other amendment, which Mr. Volpe has put forward, says “may review any regulations”. Again, it's “may” review any regulations.

There are the 3,000 pages, and there's the complexity of it, so these are two very different amendments. I'm kind of puzzled by the witnesses who failed to see that. Can you explain to me why you didn't see that?

[Marie-France Dagenais]

No, I'm sorry. I must admit I didn't see it. I just got stuck on the words “shall” and “may”. As I said before, I think if you create an obligation for--

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Or did you come here with the intention of presenting a political point of view?

[Marie-France Dagenais]

No, I don't have any political point of view. I'm just here to make sure that when we pass regulations, and the regulations are all agreed on by all our stakeholders, by industry, territories, and provinces, and we end up having a consensus, then I don't understand why the regulation needs to be reviewed by a committee and give you more business than--

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Okay, then you'll withdraw what you told Mr. Volpe about these two amendments, that--

[Marie-France Dagenais]

Well, what I--

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

This one deals specifically with very important concerns around the rights of Canadians, the information that's collected about Canadians, where that information goes, who's going to be in and who's going to be out of having a job.

Then this one deals with everything. It allows parliamentarians, if you want to, to take a look at how we're setting up transportation security plans, how we're doing safety regulations, and how we're doing anything within the bill. These are two quite different things. Agreed?

[Marie-France Dagenais]

I agree.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I did have an opportunity to read the amendments. Quite frankly, I think Mr. Volpe's is a good amendment, and I'm prepared to support that from the government's perspective.

I did want to clarify, though, with Mr. Coyles, specifically in relation to sections 19, 19.1, and 20 of the Statutory Instruments Act. That deals specifically with regulations and indeed gives the authority to the committee completely; you said “sort of” gives the authority.

Under that particular act, we have authority to review any regulation at any time and make a report. In fact, just in regard to one regulation, we can present that report to Parliament and ask them to revoke a particular amendment. If we don't like it on our own basis, we can research and do all of that stuff that is requested. In essence, if I understand this correctly, the only difference, really, between Mr. Volpe's amendment and Mr. Bevington's amendment is a mandatory “shall”, which means the committee has to do it every time there's a regulation.

[A voice]

Yes.