Transport Committee on Nov. 20th, 2023

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Where Mr. Barsalou-Duval was going to put...as proposed subsection 22(10).

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You're replacing it. Would you have that in writing, Mr. Badawey?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I can send it to you, yes. I have it right here, and I have it in French, too.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

It's in both official languages.

Mr. Strahl's hand is up, and then I'll turn it back over to you.

Mr. Strahl, you're now going to be talking about the amendment proposed by Mr. Badawey.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Yes, and it was my understanding, Mr. Chair, that amendments were supposed to be submitted in advance and in writing, so I'm a little concerned. There have clearly been discussions between the Bloc and the government on this amendment, as evidenced by there being translated copies of it here. We haven't had the opportunity to review any of that.

It isn't our understanding that this is how this proceeds when we are dealing with legislation, because all amendments are supposed to go through the legislative clerk to ensure that they are in order, that they don't impact other sections of the bill. I'm a little concerned that now, after being told very clearly how amendments were to be submitted, we're able to add things on the fly.

Perhaps you can clarify what's going on, in terms of whether this is even in order. If so, it certainly seems to go against the spirit of what we are trying to accomplish and what we were all told we had to do in order to have our amendments cleared.

It was quite a process, I have to tell you, Mr. Chair—several days' worth of back and forth—and to now just have it happen on the floor seems to be a departure from what was done, so I would look for your guidance there. If this is the way it could have been done, why did the rest of us go to the trouble of working with legislative counsel to make our proposals known ahead of time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

The legislative clerk would like to see what Mr. Badawey proposed in writing before determining whether or not it's in order. If it's okay with the committee, we'll suspend for one to two minutes to allow them to conduct that work and to figure out what's going on here.

I call this meeting back to order.

First I'd like to respond to Mr. Strahl's request as to whether or not this is in order. The legislative clerk has confirmed it is, indeed, in order.

For the second part of Mr. Strahl's remarks, I'll turn it over to Monsieur Barsalou-Duval to clarify what he said when he moved the motion.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The purpose of the original amendment was to ensure that security exemptions would be made public. That way, anyone, be it a citizen, a union or any other stakeholder, can be made aware of an exemption.

This morning, there were discussions with government representatives. They told us that, from their perspective, it would be preferable simply to publish the information on the Transport Canada website. That solution is faster and more flexible. To me, that makes sense, because publication in the Canada Gazette takes time. There are deadlines and numerous steps to take. There's a risk of acquiring the information much later through the Canada Gazette than through simply publishing it on the government website.

So I viewed this as a subamendment. Subsequently, there could be clearer interpretations in terms of procedure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Before I turn it over to Mr. Strahl, I want to confirm with all members that the amendment has been submitted to all members in both official languages.

I will turn it over to Mr. Strahl and then Mr. Badawey.

Mr. Strahl, the floor is yours.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you.

I do have the amendment. If this is the way we can do it, that's good to know.

The amendment I have from the clerk now says, “The Minister must, 30 days after it comes into force, make any exemption granted under subsections (1) or (2) accessible to the public through the Internet or by any other means that the Minister considers appropriate.”

This could mean putting them at the front desk of the Transport Canada office in Ottawa and saying anyone who wants can walk in and get it. By putting “by any other means that the Minister considers appropriate”, I think that completely renders the intention useless. A minister could.... Whatever he deems appropriate may be very inaccessible and not on the Internet. It says, “or by any other means that the Minister considers appropriate.” It doesn't say, “the Transport Canada website.”

I don't know why it's this vague. If Mr. Barsalou-Duval understood that we're going from the Gazette to the Transport Canada website, then the amendment should say that. Instead, it gives incredible latitude to the minister to basically do whatever he wants.

We would have had no problem supporting the original. The Transport Canada website we could have perhaps lived with, but giving the minister the ability to determine what is appropriate when we're talking about public information and increasing transparency, I think, makes the amendment completely useless, and we would vote against it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

I will turn it over to Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval has the next turn.

Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I was going to say something very similar to what Mr. Strahl said. I think the intention is there, and the way Mr. Barsalou-Duval articulated it was something I could get on board with, but then when we see the actual wording of the amendment, it feels like the wording allows for some outcomes that would be contrary to the spirit of the amendment.

This is about transparency. I think publishing it on the Transport Canada website is fine, and “with any other means the minister deems necessary” would be fine. It's the word “or” that is really problematic. It basically gives the minister the option to publish it either on the Internet, which is a big place, or any other way the minister sees fit.

I think that is simply too broad. I can't imagine the government would exercise those kinds of options, but I would prefer something that was more narrowly defined. The intention here is clearly that it be the Transport Canada website, and that any other means of publication be in addition to that. If the wording was thus, I could easily support it, but the way it's written now just makes it feel like there's too much room for outcomes that wouldn't support the spirit of what Mr. Barsalou-Duval is trying to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In order to expedite the discussion and arrive at an effective solution that would benefit everyone, we could simply replace the words “Canada Gazette” with the phrase “is published on Transport Canada's website” in my proposed amendment.

However, since this is my own amendment, I'm not in a position to move a subamendment. If someone else cared to move a subamendment, that would solve the problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Ms. Koutrakis, you have the floor.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with my colleague's proposal. We could replace “Internet” with “Transport Canada” and replace “or” with “and”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'm going to confer with the legislative clerks.

Thank you very much, Ms. Koutrakis. The first thing we need to do is to dispense with the amendment that we currently have on the table. If we have unanimous consent to do that, we can then propose another amendment that perhaps would gain the confidence of committee members.

Yes, Mr. Bachrach.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Can I propose an amendment to the amendment that's currently on the floor?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You can't if we already have a subamendment on the table.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Okay. We can only have one amendment at a time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You mean subamendment.

Does somebody want to propose unanimous consent to withdraw?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Yes, I'll propose that, since I made it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

It's proposed by Mr. Badawey.

Do we have unanimous consent to withdraw the subamendment proposed by Mr. Badawey?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

(Subamendment withdrawn)

Now we're starting fresh with amendments.

I guess I can go to Mr. Bachrach or Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

[Inaudible—Editor] to take a crack at it.