Transport Committee on March 10th, 2009

[Peter Coyles]

Well, regulation pertaining to the sections that are in--

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

In relation to this, yes. And in Mr. Volpe's case, it's “shall”, if the committee finds it upon themselves, if there's an aggrieved Canadian. Because obviously all regulations deal with Canadians and the rights of Canadians--every single regulation that goes through the House of Commons or through departments under enabling legislation.

[Peter Coyles]

And through Governor in Council, etc.

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

Absolutely.

[Peter Coyles]

The minister is accountable, and therefore those individuals have the right to go to the minister and challenge any regulation that may be made at a departmental level. The minister is accountable for that in relation to his authorities and what he would like to do for public safety. There is the review, as you've talked about, under section 19.1, by the standing joint committee on regulations.

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

If I may, is it not true that the Treasury Board continues to have a restrictive area to deal with the same issues, in essence?

[Peter Coyles]

Yes, and we're actually more restrictive, as Madame Dagenais was saying. Section 30 in our act requires us to consult right at the beginning of the process. We've mandated that.

There was testimony here from many different players, I think the teamsters as well, that suggested this is perhaps the consultative mechanism model for not only the department but for making regulations. I don't want to put words in their mouths; I'm paraphrasing a bit.

We're already starting right at Canada Gazette part I to enable that consultation process. For us, that consultation process begins before. It's not just Canada Gazette part I and then you have the opportunity to consult.

You've heard testimony that we use the minister's advisory council, which has all the industry--the modal representatives, unions--the first responders, and public at large, who provide advice to the minister. We use the task force, which has all the provinces and territories. All this is done prior to gazetting. We then consult with our players.

Then, after we have some type of common understanding, we go forward with Canada Gazette part I to seek formal comments to look at having a review of those regulations. That section is already more stringent than what Treasury Board guidelines are proposing or require the government to do.

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

And those guidelines actually mandatorily require that consultation process.

[Peter Coyles]

Through the Canada Gazette, correct. But you could go to Canada Gazette part II under the smart regulations. We start at the process we defined.

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

Further, is there a mechanism for reviewing and appealing regulations that already exists today, even outside the scope of this?

[Peter Coyles]

Again, sections 19 and 19.1 give you a review. You have the whole notion, as I was trying to explain, of how we develop regulations, so there's a lot of opportunity for review and appeal. Right through the process you have opportunity to comment through the Canada Gazette. We must respond to every single comment. If we have some type of general understanding and consensus, then we must move forward to Canada Gazette part II to publish a regulation that would come into force.

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

I have a final question, and it might be the clerk who will answer this.

Since the House committees are the masters of their own destiny, would this possibly be ultra vires and beyond the ability to legislate because it's a mandatory obligation on the committee?

I'm curious, and maybe the clerk can answer that. But certainly we are masters of our own destinies. That's my understanding of a committee. If we do impose this upon ourselves in future committees, is that not acting beyond our actual jurisdiction and ability to legislate?

[Peter Coyles]

There's no question that could be the case. You have the authority and ability to call witnesses now. You do that on occasion. I can remember many transport regulations that were debated in committee prior to a regulation coming forward. I can think of certain ones on the air side, which you are probably more familiar with than I. The flight attendant ratio is what I was thinking of. You had witnesses come here, testify, look at issues, etc., prior to the development of regulation. So I think you already have that ability to do so.

Again, we do not have a political motivation. We're here to provide you with advice and allow you to make the best decision for Canadians.

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

Mr. Coyles, I want to confirm something, and I think you already have. You already confirmed that in sections 19 and 19.1 we have it.

[Peter Coyles]

You have it, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

Perhaps your motivation is not political, but the Conservatives’ is. I spoke with the parliamentary secretary. When representatives from Teamsters Canada appeared here, they said that they would have liked to see a provision similar to the Aeronautics Act. This is from the text that they submitted to us:

Teamsters Canada suggests one amendment to the bill. It is the inclusion of a provision in the proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act, which the transport committee dealt with last year, to allow this committee and the standing committee in the other House to review regulations made under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.

I thought that the parliamentary secretary would have introduced an amendment along those lines, and I talked to him about it. Why did the government not want to introduce one? We should probably include you in the questioning to find out why you had no interest in making an amendment. I found the Teamsters Canada representatives' request to us to be very reasonable, and the way in which they participated and worked with us to be positive.

Why could we not agree on an amendment that would have satisfied Teamsters Canada? Otherwise, I tend to think that the NDP proposal and the Liberal proposal are equally as good. I would be inclined to vote for both. It looks like the government did not want to propose what the Teamsters Canada representatives were asking for.

My first question goes to Mr. Jean. Why did the government not want to accommodate Teamsters Canada?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

I actually did have a motion. I saw Mr. Volpe's motion. I talked to the teamsters. In fact, one of the representatives is here, and I have frequent conversations.... Or he was here; he's gone now. I have frequent conversations with him, and we showed him a copy of the legislation that we proposed in Bill C-7, which is exactly the same legislation that he is proposing and has actually been proposed by Mr. Volpe.

I thought, in the spirit of dealing with less paperwork and killing fewer trees, I would try to just deal with it on that basis.

The difference is just “shall” and “may”. That's the difference for me. I quite frankly do think it's beyond our authority to bind future committees to that. But it's not only that. We have the ability to do so now. We have the ability to bring it before the committee and deal with it, as we did with stewardesses and the ratio between different planes, etc. We did do that, and we worked together on that. I think we have the ability to do so. That's why the government is supporting Mr. Volpe's motion, because it is working with the teamsters.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

What is the difference between the two motions and what they address? Our motion addresses the nature of a transportation security clearance. The transportation security clearance is going to be something that has to be negotiated with the United States. This is not something that's going to be done if regulations that apply under the transportation security clearance are going to have to match up to what another country tells us will be their requirement for us.

The process, the information collected, all those things will have to be negotiated with the United States. That's pretty clear. The United States is not giving us a free card here. They're saying if our system matches up to their requirements, then we'll be okay.

So what is going to happen with these regulations when they are in front of a committee with umpteen people around and we've already been through an international negotiation over those regulations? Are we going to be able to change those regulations? Are we going to be able to modify them? Is the government going to listen to the people who are not legislators?

This is why I think it is very important when we deal with this type of situation, where we're going to be making regulations that are going to be approved by another country, that those regulations come back in front of Parliament. That is why the “shall” is on that section. The “shall” is on there because it is very serious business for Canadians to accept regulations that have to be approved by another country. That is the “shall” side of it.

On the “may”, with everything else in the bill, it's entirely within the hands of the Canadian government to negotiate, to set regulations within the scope of this country.

So we have two different situations here. One of them will give protection that Canadian workers deserve. That the regulations are not onerous on those workers, that the conditions of the information they share with the government are well understood, all those things need that kind of oversight. There are two separate things going on here, and I'd surely ask the committee to look at it that way.

This is not the same thing. We divided them up. Both of these amendments can go forward and work very well.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Kennedy.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Yes.

I remember the witness from the Teamsters. Here is my idea: if there is a vote here, perhaps the officials would be better at formulating the question.

In terms of that, in other words, we're giving regulatory power to the minister, so we shouldn't pretend we're keeping it at a committee or at Parliament. That's the nature of this bill, and I guess the flexibility is required. I would be a little bit more optimistic than Mr. Bevington, in the sense that I would like to believe that whoever is negotiating for Canada's interest is simply not just going to learn what the Americans want. That's what I would like to believe, and I say that as a general principle that isn't necessarily always upheld. But that's what I'd like to expect. I don't think you create laws with the sense that someone is going to go out and do a bad job.

However, I'm looking quantitatively between the two propositions we have. If this ground has been covered when I briefly stepped out, I apologize, but I just wanted to make sure. One says “a proposed regulation” and one says “a regulation”. Is there a state in which something is a proposed regulation that is meaningful? And what does that mean in terms of the interruption to the process and so forth? If I'm not mistaken, the wording is distinctive, correct?

[Linda Wilson]

Just to briefly explain the regulatory process, there's often an initial consultation. A proposed regulation is drafted and it's published in Canada Gazette part I. Under this bill, it is required to be published in Canada Gazette part I. At that point there is a comment period in which people can submit their views on the proposed regulation, and then the actual regulation is made when it is published in Canada Gazette part II. So there is a distinction between a proposed regulation and a regulation.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Okay. I anticipated as much. I just wanted to be certain of that.

Again, I think the salutary advice we received was that the idea that the committee will be looking at it, or has the opportunity to look at it, is going to have a practical effect on the validity of regulations. So I think both the motions satisfy that. If we're not going to be able to change things, there's an enormous distinction to be made. I guess, in one case, if public scrutiny turned out to identify errors, then you would have to go back and change your regulations, as opposed to change one in mid-stream. Is that correct?