[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, November 27, 1996
.1533 
[English]
The Chairman: Order, please.
Welcome to meeting number 38 of the Standing Committee on Transport. We are meeting today to consider clause C-43, clause by clause -
Mr. Gouk (Kootenay West - Revelstoke): Bill C-43.
The Chairman: Oh, I'm sorry. Did I say clause? It's Bill C-43. Thank you, Mr. Gouk, for clarifying that for me.
We will, as has been our practice, move expeditiously through the bill, stopping at each point where we have a need to be enlightened by the government, the Reform Party or the Bloc.
Are there any comments before we start?
Consideration of clause 1 is postponed pursuant to Standing Order 75(1).
Clause 1 allowed to stand
Clause 2 agreed to
Clause 3 agreed to
The Chairman: Against clause 4 we have Reform amendments one and two. Reform amendment number one is found on page 1 of the small package. Mr. Gouk.
.1535
[English]
Mr. Gouk: This is basically the right of a municipality. We had lots of evidence that suggested it could be critical to a municipality to either open a particular crossing or in this case close a crossing. I'm trying to think which one's which. There are two of them.
Basically it has to do with the consultation process. It simply says that the municipality where the crossing is should be consulted with first so that it is fully aware and is allowed the opportunity of input before a decision is made.
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana (London East): Mr. Chairman, I have some questions on the consultative process too. Is this the clause that deals with the total consultative process?
I know that the railway safety review committee spent an awful lot of time looking at this and had suggested an independent or a consultative committee to, I suppose, be the watchdog and/or the third-party consultative committee to review all matters relating to railway safety. Is this the clause that deals with consultation or is that something else somewhere?
Mr. Ron Jackson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport): That clause is not the one referred to, Mr. Fontana. This clause has to do with the making of regulations. And in the regulation-making process, there is a mandatory requirement for consultation through the gazetting process. That is the basis through which consultation would occur in the reference to proposed new section 7.1. Consultation is in clause 28.
Mr. Fontana: Okay.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes (Hamilton West): Just to supplement Mr. Jackson's remarks, Mr. Chairman, that consultation process that he mentioned, the Canada Gazette, includes consultation with municipal representatives.
The Chairman: Does that satisfy your concern, Mr. Gouk?
Mr. Gouk: First of all, when we start talking in terms of the Canada Gazette, that's a publication of a notice of intention.
Is there a specific process to consult with municipalities, or is it up to them to follow the Canada Gazette to see that something is happening and then, through the regulation, ask specifically for that consultation to take place? Would they first have to read the Canada Gazette and find that intention was there?
Mr. Colin Churcher (Director General, Railway Legislation, Department of Transport): Mr. Chairman, the intention of proposed new section 7.1 is not to create a regulation on any specific crossing, but a general regulation, which will be gazetted.
It's true that one way for people to make their case known is to read the Canada Gazette, but there will be very close consultation with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, so anything like this wouldn't get into the Canada Gazette before it had been discussed with the FCM. This proposal in proposed new section 7.1 is not to create a regulation for any specific crossing, but a general regulation relating to crossing closures.
Mr. Gouk: That in essence is what proposed new section 7.1 simply says. ``The Governor in Council may make regulations'' regarding crossings, a variety of things for crossings. All we're saying is that it should be done in consultation with the affected municipality.
It just stands to reason. If you're going to open or close or some other way change a crossing within a municipality and that has a significant impact on that particular municipality, you should ensure - not because some clerk in the municipality follows and reads the Canada Gazette every day - that there is actual provision for them to be consulted.
This amendment doesn't say that they get to overrule it or anything else. It just gives them official status so that before something is done under the authority granted in proposed new section 7.1 the municipality will be consulted.
The Chairman: Mr. Churcher.
Mr. Churcher: Mr. Chairman, the regulation that will be carried out under this section would not be for any specific crossing, so there wouldn't be any specific municipality involved. This will be a general regulation-making power that could apply to any crossings that met a certain set of criteria, such as if there is an alternate crossing maybe within two or three miles. These numbers will be determined by the regulation through the consultation process with groups such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
.1540
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: That takes us to Reform amendment two on page two of the package.
Mr. Gouk: As much as I hate to say it, I suggest Reform amendment two was effectively quashed when you quashed Reform amendment one because it just gives the process if you're not satisfied with the procedure that will not now take place.
The Chairman: So, by quash, should I read that it's graciously withdrawn by Mr. Gouk?
Mr. Gouk: It isn't withdrawn because it's now redundant.
Clauses 4 to 12 inclusive agreed to
On clause 13
The Chairman: Against clause 13 we have government amendment one, found on page three.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, this corrects a typographical error in the English version of clause 13.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 13 as amended agreed to
Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to
On clause 16
The Chairman: Against clause 16 we have government amendment two, found on page four.
Mr. Byrne (Humber - St. Barbe - Baie Verte): Mr. Chairman, this basically just extends the concept of the exemption of testing in clause 16. During consultation the railways agreed with the proposal in clause 16 under which they'd be able to obtain an exemption from rules and requirements to carry out testing, such as high-speed tests that would require special protection at crossings. But they further suggested that coverage be extended for other short-term items that are not strictly of a testing nature.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 16 as amended agreed to
On clause 17
The Chairman: Against clause 17 we have government amendment three.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, government amendment three would add a provision to clause 17 that makes arrangements for whistle cessation in communities. We've all had complaints, as members of Parliament, from our constituents on whistle-blowing at 2 a.m., 3 a.m, 4 a.m. and 5 a.m.
In its presentation before the committee, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers felt it should be advised before a community passed a motion that would prohibit whistling. It felt their members who drive the trains are aware of potential problem crossings and could provide input to that process.
The motion would amend the bill to ensure that before a municipality passed a motion approving a whistle cessation, the railway company, the unions and the public would be advised of its intention.
The Chairman: Are you saying this is whistle-blowing legislation?
Mr. Keyes: No, it's anti-whistle-blowing legislation.
Mr. Gouk: I'd like to comment on the irony of that particular amendment. The Liberal side just turned down an amendment that would have seen the municipalities notified when the railway, or the government, on their behalf, was going to do something. Now it's saying we have to notify the railway if the municipality is going to do something. I think that's hardly a balanced sort of approach to fairness.
The Chairman: Irony is at the heart of good government, Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: The iron horse.
Mr. Keyes: Maybe fact is more at the heart of good government, Mr. Chairman, because you wouldn't gazette a cessation of a whistle at a crossing, but you would certainly gazette a regulatory change, and that process includes full consultation with municipal representatives, so that opportunity is there.
The Chairman: Sounds like a good answer to me, Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: I'm shocked to think the Liberals have the answer.
The Chairman: Mr. Mercier, any further comments?
Mr. Keyes: I know Mr. Gouk would be in support of this, since the FCM accepted this proposal.
Mr. Gouk: I didn't say I was against it, I was just pointing out the ironies.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 17 as amended agreed to
Clause 18 agreed to
.1545
On clause 19
The Chairman: Against clause 19 we have Reform amendment three, on page eight of the package.
Mr. Gouk: There are three amendments here and they all sort of go together sequentially.
I appreciate that Mr. Keyes has already pointed out the appropriateness of adopting amendments requested by the FCM, so this is one that was brought in by the FCM.
Obviously, if you have a crossing there has to be certain visibility. Cars must have the opportunity to see whether there's a train coming. There has to be a certain line of sight. If the railways keep that line of sight open, that's fine and we don't have a problem. But what is the municipality responsible for the roads in that area supposed to do if they don't?
This is simply something that says first you contact them and tell them if they don't do it you intend to. It gives them the opportunity to do it. Secondly, it gives the municipalities the right to go in and clear it, as required for the line-of-sight requirements. Third, it gives them the right to recover their costs for having done that.
The Chairman: I think it's going to get even more ironical, Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Keyes: I wholeheartedly agree with the honourable member. In fact, FCM did make that suggestion and FCM also nodded in approval when we explained to them that section 26 of the Railway Safety Act already provides for the agency to determine these matters Mr. Gouk is speaking of. So the motion is redundant.
Mr. Gouk: There's no harm in putting it in.
Mr. Keyes: If it's redundant, why put it in?
Mr. Gouk: I'd have to see the section you're referring to.
Mr. Keyes: We can get you section 26 of the Railway Safety Act. The officials probably have it handy.
Mr. Gouk: Maybe you can just quote me the appropriate part that takes care of that.
Mr. Keyes: Sure, we'll fish it out for you.
Mr. Gouk: In that case I'll be perfectly satisfied.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Churcher will provide that for you, post-haste.
Mr. Gouk: Just one second here. We seem to be talking about two different things at the same time, because there are three motions together.
Mr. Keyes: Yes. The first one is part III.
Mr. Gouk: Yes, but I have to make sure which order they're in here, Stan.
Mr. Keyes: Yes. Part III is the mechanism for compensation.
Mr. Gouk: Okay. The mechanism for compensation is contained in here. Fair enough. That takes care of Reform amendment three; I'll withdraw it.
The Chairman: Okay, so Reform three is withdrawn. How about Reform four? We're moving.
Mr. Gouk: Now we're into why they need compensation in the first place. This is giving them the right to actually go in there when deemed appropriate. In other words, if the railways do not keep that sight-way clear after being notified, then the municipality has the right to do that.
Mr. Keyes: It's clear the motion would place a legal responsibility on the railways to clear sight lines at road crossings. But at present both railway and road authorities have the responsibility for safe railway operation at crossings, and there are number of ways of achieving this, of which clearing sight lines is only one.
If we're going to start with this, maybe the honourable member is remiss in listing more than clear sight lines, but maybe pop bottles on the track, garbage on the side, tree stumps sticking out too close.... Where does the list stop?
We all like the idea, and it's incumbent upon both the municipality and the railway to come together to achieve this end.
Mr. Gouk: The sight line at an intersection is specifically a municipal responsibility where that intersection is within the boundaries of the municipality.
We're not talking about debris on the railroad line or the right of way itself. We're talking about visibility, line of sight, a regulatory requirement of the municipality at all intersections of which this is in essence another intersection. That is the reason why, in compliance with their own bylaws, they first would notify the railroad. But if a railroad does not comply - and that's actually the next amendment - then they have the right to go in and clear that themselves, as they do at any other intersection in the municipality.
.1550
Mr. Keyes: The only problem here, Mr. Chairman, is that the way the motion is put it would again, as I say, place legal responsibility on the railways to clear sight lines at road crossings.
Mr. Gouk: It is their legal responsibility. It just clarifies that.
The reason that's there, Stan, is that the next one.... You see, it's just the way this has been laid out. We simply said in the amendments the House is the one to determine the order in which they go in. It would have been better if we had gone to the fifth amendment first and worked backward from there, because in essence Reform amendment five says they notify the railway, and if the railway doesn't do it within a set period, then the municipality has the right to go in and do it.
To clarify from there, Reform amendment four says don't misunderstand this, it's still the legal responsibility of the railroad to do it. Reform three was the one that said if all this takes place, the municipality still has the right to recover cost. I withdrew that one simply because I was shown that right is already embodied in the Railway Safety Act. So that's fine. That one is taken care of.
The only real one we're concerned with is Reform motion five; but that in turn triggered amendment four and amendment three. Amendment three has been withdrawn because it has been taken care of. We still need amendment four to take care of things triggered by amendment five.
The Chairman: We can deal with both amendments.
Mr. Churcher, you have a comment?
Mr. Churcher: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I might just add something. We're talking here about clearing sight lines on third-party property. This isn't the railway right of way and it isn't the highway right of way. This is the triangle that may be necessary to get sight lines so people can see the trains coming. If there's a problem at a crossing, in fact neither railway nor the road authority has the responsibility and absolute requirement to clear those sight lines. They have to operate safely.
There are many ways of operating safely. You can slow the trains down. You can stop them so they come right up. Then you get the sight lines you need without worrying about the third-party property. You may need to put in stop signs at crossings. It's these sorts of things. Clearing sight lines is one of the options, but certainly for neither party is there a absolute responsibility or requirement to clear sight lines.
So the idea of a municipality advising a railway that it wished to clear sight lines may not be the best solution. There certainly isn't a responsibility for either party to clear sight lines.
Mr. Gouk: With all due respect, I find that explanation a little out of touch. I have never anywhere in Canada or anywhere else seen a place where a train comes to a stop at an intersection to see if any cars are coming. I have just never seen that. Maybe it would be in a switching yard or something.
Mr. Keyes: In many regional municipalities, in London and Hamilton, there are many -
Mr. Gouk: I might expect something like that in Hamilton, Stan, but -
Mr. Keyes: Safety, you mean? Yes, I guess.
Mr. Gouk: A train coming to a stop to see if a car is coming.
Mr. Keyes: Yes, if it's deemed necessary in a municipality. I can give you the intersection: Ward Avenue and Emerson Street. That's a residential area and there are many children with bicycles and all the rest of it.
You can clear the sight line all you want, but the safest, most effective way to ensure safety at that intersection is for the train to stop; and it does.
Mr. Gouk: It must be a death-slow speed zone through the area to begin with.
Mr. Keyes: I'm not up on the speed limits.
Mr. Gouk: In any case, sight line is still.... Even if the vehicle comes to a stop there still has to be a certain sight line at intersections. That's already there in the municipal act, and I think it's an appropriate thing to have in here. Maybe in unique circumstances such as the intersection you mentioned in Hamilton something like that would work, but that's at best very rare.
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: I was just wondering if Mr. Gouk could point out an example of how in fact that would work. I understand where Mr. Churcher was coming from, except I do have some difficulty. If in fact it isn't a railroad responsibility and if it isn't a municipal or road authority responsibility, then whose responsibility is it? If in fact there's a site plan, what happens if the sight lines aren't deemed to be safe? A safety officer, as you know, can deem that section to be unsafe. So how do we resolve a problem where sight lines...and I'm not talking about cars or people or bicycles, I'm talking about where there are some fundamental problems with that sight line.
.1555
I think Mr. Gouk raises an issue. So that I can understand how it's going to be resolved within the existing legislation, as opposed to giving some additional authority that Mr. Gouk wants to, to the municipalities to deal with the situation....
Mr. Churcher: Mr. Chairman, in many cases a railway safety inspector will examine a crossing. He'll go with a representative of the railway and representative of the highway authority, and they'll take a look at the crossing. He'll try to make sure everybody understands the concerns. If either party is unwilling to do anything that's necessary to make the line safe - and we have certain standards that must be met - he will issue an order.
There are a number of orders that might be issued. He could put an order on the trains to slow the trains down - and I have done this myself - from 60 miles an hour to 30 miles an hour, which reduces the sight line requirements. That might allow you to get the sight lines you're looking for.
It may be that we have to put a stop sign on the highway so that all motorists coming up come to a stop and can get the proper sight lines that way. We do this from time to time. Or we may slow the highway vehicles down too. There are number of ways of getting the right set of standards that makes the crossing comply with our requirements.
The Chairman: Mr. Byrne.
Mr. Byrne: To follow up on that, I think the point the witness made regarding this is a potential intrusion on private property. What the member is suggesting is prescribing a specific solution to a problem for which there are many solutions that can adopted. A value that I think you hold dear and we all hold dear is to prevent intrusions on private property. So I think we have to respect that and maintain it within the spirit of this legislation.
Mr. Gouk: Putting a stop sign in reduces the angle of line of sight that you require. You don't have to have it cut so far back or so far down. The lower the speed, the less the line of sight requirement is too. But even from a dead stop, there is a certain line-of-sight requirement that happens within all intersections. So by slowing motor vehicle traffic down or even stopping it, we're changing the overall requirements of line of sight but we're not removing them. We're simply reducing them. And that has to be taken into consideration when it's cleared. If it's on railway property, that affects this. If it's not on railway property, then that's the municipality's problem and this bill doesn't deal with that.
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: Next is motion R-5.
Mr. Gouk: I have no further comment.
Amendment negatived
Clause 19 agreed to
The Chairman: Now we move to new clause 19.1, which is contained in amendment G-4.Mr. Byrne.
Mr. Byrne: Mr. Chair, this simply recognizes the laws of momentum and other physical principles and allows trains with the right of way over cars and pedestrians at crossings.
The Chairman: So we're recognizing natural law, are we?
Mr. Byrne: Absolutely, yogi-flying. We're going to have all conductors -
The Chairman: Okay.
Amendment agreed to
On clause 20
The Chairman: Against clause 20 you will note in your package that government amendment G-5 is listed there, although we are informed by the law clerk that it is not in order, that the retitling of clauses and sections is the purview of the law clerk. So we will not be proceeding with amendment G-5.
Clause 20 agreed to
.1600
On clause 21
The Chairman: Against clause 21 we have government amendment G-6, which is on page 15 in the English and page 16 in the French.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, when we received presentations from both the railways and the unions, they suggested that the proposals in the bill to change the title of ``railway safety inspector'' to ``railway safety officer'' would create confusion because ``officer'' could also refer to a railway company employee. These motions would leave the original term ``railway safety inspector'' in the Railway Safety Act as is presently found. ``Officer'' more correctly describes the function, but the term ``inspector'' is used in other Transport Canada legislation, so these motions would allow modal consistency within the department.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keyes. Is there any comment or question?
Mr. Cullen (Etobicoke North): Mr. Chairman, do we define ``inspector'' in this act or these amendments, or do we need to?
Mr. Churcher: It's a person created under subsection 27(1) of the act:
- The Minister may designate any person whom the Minister deems qualified as a railway safety
inspector for the purposes of this Act and, where the Minister does so, the Minister shall
designate the matters in respect of which the person may exercise the powers....
Mr. Churcher: Yes.
The Chairman: Shall government amendment G-6 carry?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 21 as amended agreed to
On clause 22
The Chairman: Against clause 22 we have government amendment G-7, found on page 17 in the English and page 19 in the French.
Mr. Keyes: This is consequential to the last government amendment.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 22 as amended agreed to
Clause 23 agreed to
On clause 24
The Chairman: We have government amendment G-8, which is found on page 21 in both languages.
Mr. Byrne: Mr. Chair, this motion refers to clause 24, which covers medical examinations. The railways suggested in their presentation to us that the term ``company-sponsored'' carried with it the connotation of responsibility for payment. They recommended that it be replaced with the term ``company-organized''. Basically that carries it.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 24 as amended agreed to
Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to
On clause 27
The Chairman: Against clause 27 we have government amendment G-9.
Mr. Keyes: This is consequential, Mr. Chairman.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 27 as amended agreed to
On clause 28
The Chairman: Against clause 28, Mr. Mercier, we have Bloc amendment one, found on page 24.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier (Blainville - Deux-Montagnes): Because of the request and concern of the transport minister of Quebec, he would be included in the membership of the committee that the minister may establish:
28. Subsection 44(1) of the Act is amended by adding, after paragraph (a) the following:
(a.1) one member to represent the minister of Transportation of Quebec;
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, the motion would add a member for the transportation minister of Quebec to the Railway Safety Consultative Committee, but clause 28 eliminates that committee. I'm sure the Bloc member probably wants to withdraw the amendment.
The Chairman: Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Fontana: On the whole question of the repeal under clause 28, which essentially deals with section 44 on the Railway Safety Consultative Committee, just so that I understand it, a railway safety committee or consultative committee would be there because it would be Order in Council appointments. I don't want to get into numbers or the costs and so on, but it would really be a third party consultative committee that would review a number of matters that would come to its attention. As I understand it, the process would be that if a railroad inspector issued a prohibition order or something to the railroads, they could appeal. To whom would they appeal? Would they appeal to Transport Canada?
.1605
I'm trying to understand the process, because it would seem to me that had a consultative committee existed for the past five years a number of changes could have been initiated and done, as opposed to waiting for the five-year sunset provision of the five-year review that was mandated by the previous bill.
I'm wondering whether or not that consultative committee wouldn't serve a useful purpose in having the minister deal with a number of railway safety issues that I'm sure will come up during the next five years. That instrument...I'm sure it wouldn't have to be a group of 13 members, as was prescribed in section 44 before.
Surely a consultative committee that would be beneficial to the minister, to deal with railway safety matters, only meeting two or three times a year dealing with railway safety issues would be a proactive instrument to help Transport Canada and essentially the minister deal with certain issues. The appointees would be third party, no vested interest.
I'd like to know who you're going to consult with, even though I think I've asked you the question, Ron, and you've said we'll consult with the railway association, we'll consult with FCM maybe, or we'll consult with all these other bodies. But I'm talking about a permanent body whose mandate will be to advise the minister or deal with railway-specific issues.
Before I can vote on clause 28, I'd like to understand how this whole new system is going to work.
Mr. Keyes: Maybe I can ask for a point of clarification on Mr. Fontana's question.
Are there other venues where these things can be brought forward? Of course there's the minister's department and there's the Transportation Safety Board. Could they be appealed to by individuals when it comes to discussing railway safety matters?
Mr. Jackson: There are a number of avenues. I guess we need to look at this in two dimensions. One issue that Mr. Fontana raised was appealing an order or having a method of taking a decision of an inspector to another level. That's one issue. The other is the whole issue of consultation on regulations, on rule-making, on the future direction of railway safety, on safety concerns that we may have as a department, that the Transportation Safety Board may have. In terms of the redress mechanisms, there are some well in place. There are ways in which a person who has been sanctioned can appeal to the minister and so on to have the matter considered at a second level.
As far as consultation is concerned, we have in place a number of standing committees. They are not officially appointed but are there to deal with things like the regulatory plan, like the concerns of the railways, the unions and so on with respect to the direction railway safety is taking in Canada. As well, we will form committees on specific matters as they are required, to deal with subjects with the right mix of members in order to provide constructive advice to officials in the department and to the minister.
Insofar as having a standing committee, a committee that the minister might appoint, the minister could always do that if there were a need to have ongoing advice. He could in fact invite members from various stakeholder groups to sit and advise. However, I think we believe we have in place mechanisms now that provide the same benefits without having the bureaucracy of a standing committee.
Mr. Fontana: The standing committees of which you speak are standing committees of what, Transport Canada? What standing committees are now in place to deal in the consultative fashion?
My other question is if you repeal clause 28.... If I'm not mistaken, the minister, upon review of the report of the railway safety review committee that had as one of its recommendations that a consultative committee continue.... It was the department's position and the minister's position that there was agreement in principle on that kind of structure.
.1610
I'm just wondering whether or not a permanent consultative committee, as opposed to ad hoc standing committees, and so on and so forth.... Because the make-up of the consultative committee would be seized with a particular mandate, as opposed to the standing committees. I would like to know whose standing committees they are. Are they standing committees of the House, of Transport Canada, of the Railway Association of Canada, or something like that - which is a vested-interest group, let's face it. I'm talking about a neutral third-party group.
Mr. Churcher: Mr. Chairman, Transport Canada has a number of committees. Admittedly, they're unofficial committees, but they've been brought together to look at the types of problems that may arise. For example, we have one that consists of representatives from the transportation departments of each province and we make sure they understand where we are all jointly going with regard to railway regulation.
We have another committee that was established as a result of the review committee recommendation to reduce the number of crossing accidents by 50% in the next 10 years, and this is a very wide group. It includes just about any group that is involved with highway crossings, and it includes chiefs of police. There are representatives from municipalities. The railways are there too, but they play a lesser role in this committee. Operation Lifesaver is another good example.
Mr. Fontana: I understand all those things are in place, but I must tell you that if you look at the past five years since the act has been put in place, a number of things could have been done, because I imagine those standing committees all existed before. But for five years nothing happened save and except a piece of legislation that dealt with the Trespass to Property Act, because I think there was consensus and a review committee that was mandated to provide a whole bunch of amendments.
Had a consultative committee existed for five years, I would suggest to you that in the past five years a number of those issues could have been dealt with on an ongoing basis, as opposed to waiting, and being reactive as opposed to being proactive. I just want to know that those standing committees are proactive committees that deal with these things all the time.
Mr. Churcher: Mr. Chairman, if I may, we've taken initiative in many cases to set up committees to make sure that issues as they arise are addressed, without waiting for any formal requirement to do so. The composition of these committees will change as the issues change, too, over time.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fontana.
Mr. Mercier, I understand -
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: I oppose clause 44 which provides for the abolition of the consultative committee. I submit it should be maintained. If my views prevail and if this clause on section 44 is voted down, my amendment would have all its meaning. I would like the transport minister to be a member of the committee that would be maintained. I move that we vote on this clause on section 44. If it is negatived, I will move my amendment, but I will not move it if the clause is passed. Is that agreeable?
[English]
The Chairman: Just for clarification, Mr. Mercier, your amendment, as it stands here, is to clause 28, which is amending section 44. I don't have the section here. Is that what it is? You reference section 44. So what you want is a vote on your amendment B-1.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: On clause 28.
[English]
The Chairman: Bloc amendment one.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: I move that we vote on clause 28. If it is negatived and if the consultative committee is thus maintained, I will move my amendment B-1. Is that agreeable?
[English]
The Chairman: Oh, I see. I've got it. So I'm calling the question on clause 28, without the Bloc amendment. Does everyone understand what is happening?
Mr. Fontana: For clarification, clause 28 is repealing section 44.
The Chairman: Right. So should clause 28 by some chance carry, then Mr. Mercier will not move Bloc amendment one. But should clause 28 be defeated, then Bloc amendment one has some legs, as I understand it. So let us see whether clause 28 carries.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: If clause 28 is negatived, the consultative committee will stay. My amendment will then be in order.
.1615
[English]
The Chairman: Oh, I've got you. It takes me a while.
Mr. Gouk: Just a specific clarification: could I ask what the rationale is - I'm sure they have one - for striking that committee?
Mr. Keyes: We just went through the whole thing about ten minutes ago. The chief reason, to summarize, is if you struck a committee within the body of this legislation and we have all the other opportunities for dealing with the same issues at different standing committees, and other opportunities to bring it forward through either the TSB or any other organization, you don't want to hamper their work, because any time you're going to do anything it's going to have to go through a committee structured in legislation which, as I've heard, has been in existence for five years, and how many times has it been used? Never. It has never been used.
The Chairman: That sounds like a good explanation to me.
Clauses 28 to 31 inclusive agreed to
Clause 32 negatived
Mr. Keyes: Wait a minute. We have to deal with the amendment first, G-10. We're voting against a government amendment.
The Chairman: No, let me explain. Government amendment 10 is designed to delete clause 32. That's not in order. We simply vote against clause 32 and the issue is dealt with.
It shows the independence of committees. Clause 32 is defeated.
Clauses 33 to 37 inclusive agreed to
Clause 1 agreed to
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the bill as amended carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Keyes: At your convenience.
The Chairman: Next Monday.
Thank you all. I thank the officials for the time they have taken. I realize it has been a thoughtful and lengthy deliberation here in committee.
Thank you all. The meeting is adjourned.