Evidence of meeting #7 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much.
We've been discussing this for quite some time, and it's just an impression, but in discussing this we've gone over into the amendment that I proposed. And in fact they kind of overlap.
My intervention is designed to assure Monsieur Laframboise about what my perception of the difference is. It also indicates to Mr. Bevington that I don't think my amendment has any less impact than his own, inasmuch as my understanding of the way we work in Parliament is if there is a report that comes out of a committee on anything, especially regulations, once you report the findings of this committee, the House concurs in that report and that obligates the government to take that report as a newer aspect of that legislation--in other words, to implement those regulations as they are seen by this committee.
I could be wrong in my understanding of that--I've been wrong before--but for Mr. Laframboise and for those others who are looking at what the basic difference is, I see my amendment.... And I hope you don't see this as being too presumptuous, Mr. Chairman, because we are now talking about an amendment that's not on the table, but I'm going to ask you to do something in a second. I think my amendment is actually broader in its scope than the amendment Mr. Bevington proposes because mine refers specifically to any regulation made under this act, whereas Mr. Bevington refers only to those made under paragraphs 27.1(1)(b), (c), or (d).
And Mr. Bevington's amendment constrains the House by obligating it to send it here, essentially while it's got it on Canada Gazette part I. In other words, we'll actually be inviting those witnesses that the department is obligated to listen to under Canada Gazette part I.
I think mine goes a little bit further. And even though it uses the word “may”, it's part of the convention of this parliamentary process that we can take everybody after Canada Gazette part II and say okay, you've had six months or you've had a year, what problems do you see, and we can make the adjustment.
The reason I think that's wider is that Mr. Bevington, notwithstanding his good intentions, says “The committee shall, within 60 days...”. That's like two months. With due respect, that's probably not enough time to find out whether those regulations are actually workable, because they will not have been seen to work, inasmuch as they are in Canada Gazette part I.
So I'm going to ask, Mr. Chairman, without any arrogance or presupposition, whether you would sound out this committee to see if we can move immediately to determine whether we actually do want to accept Mr. Bevington's amendment, and if not, would we go directly to mine.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Yes. You know there is quite a difference here, actually, and I'm glad Mr. Volpe pointed it out, because it's something that fits well with what I'm trying to get across, which is that this amendment speaks to the transportation security clearances, which have the ability to impact on the rights of Canadians. Therefore, it's probably a good idea to review those regulations in front of Parliament prior to their implementation.
Mr. Volpe's amendment is a good amendment, and it covers everything after it's implemented. So after the fact, and that's quite clear, made under this act, with a written complaint or by its own initiative, it can bring back these regulations for review after they have been in place.
So on the one hand, we have an issue that is more of a charter issue, which ties to the rights of Canadians to privacy, which should be very carefully examined prior to issuing the law. On the other hand, we have regulations, which need time in the field to ensure they are correct or not correct. So these are two quite different things, and that's why I think they both stand very well. And I would encourage Mr. Volpe, along with everyone else, to see that we can live with both of these within the bill.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you.
The rules would suggest that we have to deal with this amendment as it's been presented, and I will ask now for those who are in favour of amendment NDP-3.
(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clauses 26 to 28 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 29—Ministerial fees orders)
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
As I've indicated, Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment gives this committee the opportunity to take any regulations, including the ones that have been the subject of discussion over the course of the last half hour, and to bring in witnesses or those who have a specific reason to feel dissatisfied at any time after they've been promulgated, and make a report that hopefully will be passed by the House of Commons, will be accepted, and will be concurred in. If that is the case, then we'll resolve the problem.
I think this particular motion, this amendment, would meet the support of stakeholders in the industry. We talked about teamsters earlier. I think they talked with all government and opposition members, or at least all parties--I don't know whether they talked to every member--in order to see if they could get support. I dare say they would probably be supportive of this as well.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Are there no comments?
(Amendment agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
(Clause 29 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 30 to 37 inclusive agreed to)
4:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at the report stage?
4:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Well, that's the first bill. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
I have just a little bit of business. On Thursday, March 12, I'd like to have a subcommittee meeting, perhaps for one hour. We can plan what we're going to do when we come back from the recess, and that will allow our clerk to bring witnesses as required.
If that's all good, then I shall adjourn the meeting.
Have a good break week.
The meeting is adjourned.