Transport Committee on Dec. 7th, 2010

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I agree that the Bloc's three years is probably more reasonable than our two years. I think the only other difference is that we also call for a regular review every five years thereafter.

If the Bloc wants to add the point that we have the review every five years thereafter, in addition to within three years after the act comes into force, or else if the Bloc would like to accept our version, but with the amendment saying “within three years”, not “within two years”, either way I think it comes to the same thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

I'm looking at Liberal 4, which is similar with regard to the review, and the difficulty I have with this is with regulations. They already have to be gazetted; they already have to be published. This proposal would take the executive authority away from the--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Liberal amendment 4 and BQ-4?

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

I thought we were on Liberal amendment 3.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

No.

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

Okay, sorry. I apologize. That's why I was confused.

Excellent. That's good, because that was exactly my point. Great.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Guimond, would you accept the Liberal amendment with the insertion of your clause at the beginning of it?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

So we understand that Liberal amendment 4 would be presented with the first portion, the (1.1) BQ amendment substituted for number 3 in the Liberal amendment. Do we understand that?

Is it the second one?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

That is correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

We insert the other one in ours, so that will be the way to go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're just trying to get that in the order.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Okay, so why don't we do that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

BQ-4 will be withdrawn. We will go to LIB-4 and we're going to insert clause 1.1, the whole clause, and remove clause 3 on the Liberal amendment. So where the Liberal amendment says “Within two years after this Act comes into force and every five years thereafter” it will read “Within three years of this subsection coming into force, a comprehensive review of its operation shall be undertaken by such committee....”

Do we want to insert the five-year timeframe, Mr. McCallum?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Yes.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Five years, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Guimond, you're okay with that?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Okay.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Chair, wouldn't it be simpler if we just kept ours as is and say “Within three years” instead of “Within two years”?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes, we could do that.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Chair, the Conservatives just made a suggestion that I think is reasonable. Keep it at two years, but say it would be under a comprehensive review that's commenced. So within two years we would commence the review.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

So it would read: “Within two years after this Act comes into force”—