Brian Masse In Action
After you read this BLOG, dear reader, let me know if the subject line should be changed to three words or remain at four.
Back in the end of May, I thought I heard that the City of Windsor was going to make a submission to the Commons Transport Committee dealing with Bill C-3. I asked for a copy from the Committee and was told that the "Clerk of the Transport Committee had "not received any document from the City of Windsor, and if I did, It is considered a brief to the Committee. you can contact the City of Windsor and request a copy from them."
So I did and was told on May 30 "The City has not yet made a submission re Bill C-3. Councillor Halberstadt asked that one be prepared last night."
I never got a copy of a submission so I was surprised to read in the transcript of the hearings that my NDP MP, Brian Masse, was introducing amendments on behalf of the City. I found out that the City had made a submission on June 1. Just to prove one was entered, I copied part of Page 1 of the seven page document above.
Interestingly, when I asked someone at City Hall about it, he told me that the Mayor had said to Councillors that none had been made. Strange don't you think.
So I wanted to see what MP Border,,, errrrr Masse, entered in as amendments and what happened to them. (Some may be City amendments, some NDP...it is not clear from the transcript of the hearings in every case) After all, it is a Minority Parliament, he knows everything there is to know about borders and ought to know the rules of Parliament backwards and forwards by now. Moreover, the "City" amendments "were originally submitted... from the City of Windsor and their legal experts." I went through two days of transcripts on the Clause by Clause reveiew of the Act and here is what I discovered:
- Amending Section 4 re "municipal by-laws and provincial laws "amendment does appear to be contrary to the principle of the bill...I am now advised that it is inadmissible."
- Amending Section 7 re information to be supplied by an applicant to the Minister, "Again, I'm advised by counsel that it is inadmissible, as subparagraph (ix) is contrary to the principle of the bill."
- Amending Section 8 re approvals "We have an amendment introduced by the NDP. Again, I'm advised by counsel that it is inadmissible due to its being contrary to the principle of the bill."
- (Procedural Clerk): With respect to amendment NDP-3, it would require the consent of the municipality. That goes contrary to the principle of the bill, which is basically to provide for the Governor in Council to have the authority to issue relevant permissions. A veto given to the municipality goes against that. Because the bill has been approved by the House at second reading, the committee is required to respect that principle.
- Amending Section 12 re Expropriation "I'm dropping the amendment since it's consequential. It just reaffirms the process I couldn't change"
- Adding a new clause "There is a new clause, 12.1, amendment NDP-5. Unfortunately, it is inadmissible due to requiring royal recommendation. It violates royal recommendation."
- New Section 15 (2) re Minister consulting with other levels of government "if in his opinion such is necessary having regard to all the circumstances" Carried
- Amendment NDP-8. "Once again, I am taking the advice of counsel and suggesting that it is inadmissible. It's beyond the scope in imposing a tax.
- Amending Section 16 re hazardous materials. Withdrawn and to be dealt with in discussion respecting Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.
- Amending Section 18 re Authorized officer may make emergency direction "I'll drop my amendment. I apologize"
- Amending Section 32 re change in mode of transportation use "withdraw my amendment"
I have my opinion for the number of words for the subject-line based on the results achieved. Do you?