Evidence of meeting #54 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st 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.
General Counsel and Associate Head, Department of Transport
The comment was made to us. We gave the same explanation I'm giving you, and this seemed to satisfy the concern.
Liberal
General Counsel and Associate Head, Department of Transport
The comments that were made, the explanation that was given, and the explanation as to what “operate” means in the context of the act seemed to address the concern.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Chair, as a former corporate lawyer who litigated and I look at the plain English language of this, what I see is cause of action all over this for different parties who will argue that somebody else was in fact involved as well, and not just their client. This is why we've evolved, especially in terms of the specificity of “charge, the management or control” at the time of the accident or release, on so many of the transportation of dangerous goods questions. We've narrowed it down precisely to circumscribe the possibility of saying others were involved too.
General Counsel and Associate Head, Department of Transport
The problem with that language is that if I have a railway that carries traffic on the railway line of another railway, and there's an accident, who has control of the traffic is technically speaking the railway that's carrying the traffic. I think the intention of the government was to avoid debate as to what was the cause of the accident. It could be faulty trackage, which would be the host railway. In that case, the intention of the government was to make both railways that are physically involved in the accident liable, and that language would not address it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Is there no further discussion?
(Clause 10 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 11 to 16 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 17)
Next we have NDP-2.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Mr. Chair, I'm moving the amendment.
NDP-2, our second amendment, is regarding the fact that this bill repeals the definition of “fatigue science”, in subsection 4(1) of the Railway Safety Act.
We did ask questions to the—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Before we go any further, you've moved it and I had to let you do that before I make my ruling. I have to rule this inadmissible on advice that I have, Mr. Mai.
Okay?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
On division? Okay.
(Clause 17 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 18 to 20 inclusive agreed to)
Now on to proposed new clause 20.1.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
This was for a new clause, and now that it's basically withdrawn, we don't have a vote on it.
NDP
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Yes, it was.
(Clauses 21 to 33 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 34)
On clause 34, PV-1.
Is there any discussion on Ms. May's amendment?
