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.
5:05 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
If you really want to fix it, the way would be to--
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Because you understand the principle that we're approaching.
March 10th, 2011 / 5:05 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
Yes.
It would be to amend section 18 to provide the authority to make rules on scheduling. That would be the way to do it.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
But this amendment will allow that, will it not?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
If I may, I think I'll ask Mr. Dhaliwal...because maybe your amendment might carry that.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Will you present it and then we'll kick both around?
In discussing Mr. Julian's, I'd like you to discuss yours--as opposed to “must” and “may”.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
The way I see it is that...because in this one, it's “which may include scheduling rules consistent with the principles of fatigue science”.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Perhaps I could just interject for a moment.
The government's position is that we are in favour of Mr. Dhaliwal's amendment. My difficulty is I know we have seven minutes before the bells go, and if we do not pass this, we have a break week and another time. I don't know if the Liberals and the coalition are going to pull us down or not, but I'd like to get this done today.
So unless there are specific questions that relate to this that wouldn't solve the issue, I would really prefer to try to deal with it.
We've in favour of this amendment. We think it's good, and we're in favour of whatever else we need to do in order to give effect to this amendment.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Just briefly, I imagine if you ask the witnesses, it's the same issue between NDP-5 and Liberal-3, and that is that nowhere is there a concept of what “scheduling rules” are. So how do we give effect to that?
5:05 p.m.
An hon. member
They told us that already.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Why don't we deal with this one and then make that amendment? Can we do that? Can we vote on this and then take the suggestion on the amendment?
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, I think with the unanimous consent of the committee we can extend beyond the bells starting. I think we need to take just a minute or two to tweak this.
I'm still unclear as to why “must” clearly takes us to another section of this act but “may” doesn't. It would seem to me that either they're both problematic or neither of them is.
5:05 p.m.
An hon. member
Can you repeat that question, Mr. Julian?
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I don't understand why “must” would take us to a different section of the act and “may” doesn't. The two of them are the same problem.
5:05 p.m.
Director, Rail Safety Secretariat, Department of Transport
They're the same.
5:05 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
They're the same thing, yes.