Evidence of meeting #55 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Is there no further comment?
I will advise the committee that this amendment must be adopted if amendments BQ-2 and BQ-3 are to be admissible.
Mr. Watson has a point of order.
We moved past clause 4 to deal with this, because—
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
We're on amendment BQ-3, but you said this amendment has to be approved in order for “BQ-3” to be admissible.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I'm sorry. This amendment must be adopted in order for BQ-1 and BQ-2 to be admissible.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I just wanted to make sure the committee knew that.
Shall the amendment carry?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 10 agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
There are no amendments put forward to clause 11.
Shall clause 11 carry?
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I thought I would move through this. None of the previous amendments to clause 4 impact the rest of the bill. That was the only one, clause 10. That's why we asked to have it moved to the end.
We can go back there, if the committee chooses.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I'd propose that, Mr. Chair, just for the simple reason that it's easier to shuffle the paper if we're doing it in sequence.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Then we are going to move back to clause 4.
(On clause 4)
Amendment BQ-1 is no longer admissible, and amendment BQ-2 is no longer admissible, so we will deal with amendment G-1 on page 2 of your package.
Mr. Jean.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think this is self-explanatory. What we are doing here is defining the highest level of safety and what it means. In this particular case it means “the lowest acceptable level of risk as demonstrated by a risk management analysis”.
We heard from the witnesses in particular that they liked this. I don't know whether Mr. Bourdon would like to make any comments on this, but I think it's self-explanatory.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
The bill did not define what “the highest level of safety” meant. We thought it would probably be appropriate to have a clear definition. I can say that all the stakeholders we talked to during our briefing agreed that this was a clear definition that would at least allow us to clearly define what we mean by it.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
I previously made the observation that it had to be defined or it didn't really make sense, so I think this is good.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Is there any further comment?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
This now moves us to amendment LIB-1, and, I'm going to say, amendment NDP-1. If you look at them, they're very similar. I would think the committee might want to either address them both at the same time and/or accept one over the other through a subamendment. They're very similar.
We will take amendment LIB-1.
Mr. Watson, do you have a comment?
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
The only difference between them is the additional word “human”; is that what I'm to understand?
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
In the English version, that is correct.
Are they the same on the French side?
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I was just going to say that I have no difficulty with either one. But I was just wondering whether, from Mr. Bourdon's perspective, “human” detracts there. Does it make any difference?
I mean, with “fatigue”, I don't think we're going to be looking at animal fatigue or train fatigue. But I just want to make sure, does it, in your...?