Bill C-6 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment deals with integrated management systems and authorizes the establishment of voluntary reporting programs under which information relating to aviation safety and security may be reported. It also authorizes the designation of industry bodies to certify persons undertaking certain aeronautical activities. Other powers are enhanced or added to improve the proper administration of the Act, in particular powers granted to certain members of the Canadian Forces to investigate aviation accidents involving both civilians and a military aircraft or aeronautical facility.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Yes, it is, Mr. Chair.

Obviously, I feel very strongly that it is not appropriate to allow Bill C-6 to override the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act, but we've had this debate and others have disagreed. That becomes more of a public domain debate. I don't think we need to spend more time arguing that here around this table.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

If I recall, I think it was Lib-2. The amendment I was proposing is not quite the same, but I was proposing that we reference the Canada Labour Code in Bill C-6 for greater certainty.

If we need to have the phrase “for greater certainty”, then I'm quite prepared to do it, if somebody wants to recommend it. It would be a friendly amendment.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think the more we're discussing this, the more we're actually seeing the necessity to have it in place. If there is no contradiction between the Canada Labour Code and the Aeronautics Act, then it is advisable to have that option available to employees. It is an option. The specific wording of the amendment is “may make a complaint in writing”. It gives an avenue for that employee. It's “may make”. It's not an absolute; it's not a requirement. It is an option that employees have.

Very clearly, the Canada Labour Code needs to govern the discussions that take place at this level. Otherwise if an employee is punished, if that employee is disciplined, if that employee is dismissed, what we have is the SMS, because this is, as Mr. Bélanger correctly identifies, within the SMS systems of the act. We have what we received two weeks ago: the enterprise manager's simplified event review process of SMS-related non-compliance events.

So was there a contravention of the Aeronautics Act? Yes. Was this contravention committed by a person or enterprise governed by an SMS? Yes. Was the contravention internally reported and documented within the enterprise? Yes. Was the contravention committed intentionally by the enterprise? Yes. We lead to “the enterprise manager submits within 12 months a detection notice to aviation enforcement”.

If what we are doing is setting up a system—a very long, convoluted system—for an employee who has lost their job as a result of actions that we are trying to protect against by reinforcing certain provisions of this bill, then in a very real sense an employer can take disciplinary action against the employee. It may be in a couple of years. The company may be fined. Maybe the employee can go to court. But there is no protection. There is no internal system that allows that employee to reach out in an immediate way. The amendment here offers a 90-day timeline so the employee can move through the Canada Labour Code, through the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

It is not something that requires them to go to court. It is not something that requires them to simply trust in Transport Canada. It is something the employees themselves can do. That system of checks and balances we should want to see within Bill C-6, because certainly that's what witnesses called for: a system of checks and balances.

So what the amendments do is establish that system of checks and balances and give an option to the employee. It's not an obligation; “may make” is an option for employees to take, so that employees have the ability to move through an existing process and protect their job when they have been disciplined or dismissed unduly.

It doesn't make sense for us to set up a series of checks and balances but have in the end no ability for the employee to do anything except either trust in Transport Canada or essentially go through the court system. That makes no sense, because what it does is allow for a hollow shell. We're essentially saying to the employees, “We don't really want any actions to be taken against you, but if the actions are taken against you, we're not going to leave you with any options.”

I think to be consistent with what we have discussed thus far in the committee--Mr. Laframboise's amendment, the Liberal amendments that have come forward, and even the government's own amendments--we need a process for those employees, and that's what this amendment provides for.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

This puts already established procedure in place. All three of the opposition parties offered amendments to this effect, that provisions of the Canada Labour Code would apply even in provisions of Bill C-6. We're certainly not contradicting anything in Bill C-6. It offers that level of protection for the employee that I think we all share.

We want to ensure that the employee whistle-blower is protected. This allows for that level of protection. Otherwise we don't have a clear and defined process for an employee. This allows very clearly for that through the Canada Industrial Relations Board and the Canada Labour Code.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Reinhardt, I did ask you what the process was for the employee. The process is going to court, which we would have regardless of whether Bill C-6 existed. This allows for a legal process that is outside the court system.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 27(1), commencing on Wednesday June 13, 2007, and concluding on June 21, 2007, the House shall continue to sit until 10 p.m.

He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a motion that can be made one day a year, not on Christmas Day or Ground Hog Day, but this day, the 10th sitting day before June 23. It is a motion that can be made to allow the House to sit late into the evening.

I know that many members, when they look at that portion of the calendar and they see possible extension of sitting hours, they think that means we get to leave early for summer vacation, but that is not what it means. What it means is that under the Standing Orders of the House we can potentially sit and work late to get as much of the people's business done as possible because there are very important priorities for Canadians.

I will bear my soul here and say that it was not always my intention to move this motion. It was my hope that it would not be necessary. I was hoping that we would be making good progress.

For example, Bill C-52 in particular, the budget implementation bill was a bill which we believed we had an understanding with the other parties; in fact it had been shaken on by the member for St. Catharines, the member of the Liberal Party for Scarborough and others that it would be over to the Senate by June 6. Somewhere along the way the Liberal Party sought to treat it a little bit differently and as a result we are still debating it here almost a week later than the date we thought it would be over at the Senate. As a result of course we have lost considerable time to deal with other priorities for Canadians.

I want to talk about what those other priorities for Canadians might be, but first I want to focus on that number one priority which is Bill C-52, the budget implementation bill. As we have heard from many people in the House today, if that bill does not pass by the time the House rises for the summer, if that bill has not been dealt with, there are a number of financial priorities on issues that are very important to Canadians that will be lost, because it is a bill that reaches back to the previous fiscal year to spend funds. Those funds have to be allocated. The bill has to be passed and receive royal assent in order for those funds to be available in that fashion. If not, they are lost.

Some of those examples are ones which we have heard about today. The one that is at the top of my personal list is the $620 million in the budget for the patient wait times guarantee trust. This is money that is allocated to assist provinces in addressing what is one of our number one priorities—actually one of our top five priorities; I should put it that way—from the last election. That priority is to achieve a patient wait times guarantee, to help people get the kind of health care they need on a basis that is reasonable, that is practical, that is clinically sound.

For too long we saw patient wait times under the previous government actually double in length. We have this much vaunted Canadian health care system that we all purport to believe in, but if we really believe in it, we have to see that it works. An important part of it working is that Canadians should receive the health care that they need on a timely basis. That is what the $612 million is specifically aimed at.

The provinces are very anxious to receive these funds. It means a great deal for a lot of provinces. In my own province of Ontario that means $200 million plus of real money that Ontario needs for its health care system. The same thing, together with other elements, will mean for the province of Nova Scotia for health care $639 million including the transfer there. There is similar money throughout the country.

We are talking of significant funds. There are other elements in the budget. Much of that transfer will not be lost, as I said, because it is in the main budget funds, but the patient wait times guarantee money, that $612 million, is money that will be lost if we do not deal with that on a timely basis.

Another one that is very important is the $1.5 billion for the clean air and climate change trust. That is to help the provinces implement their plans to reduce greenhouse gases. It is very important.

On January 4 of this year, the Prime Minister addressed Canadians and identified what our priorities would be in government this year. One of those major priorities was to take real action on the environment. We have just seen that at the G-8 summit. In the summit declaration Canada's approach is an approach that is drastically different than it was for 13 years under the previous government when greenhouse gas emissions rose dramatically regardless of the commitments it took on. Now we have a national plan that results in real reductions, an actual plan that does that in both the short and medium term but also very importantly in the long term.

It is that approach by the Canadian government that was hailed as an example not just by world leaders, by other G-8 leaders, but by journalists from around the world, by special interest groups. The World Wildlife Fund, for example, issued a statement heralding Canada's approach as a model. The reason it is held out as a model and an example is it is an approach that can be used regardless of how lousy one's track record may be. This is important for a lot of the major emitters that had not been part of the arrangements up until now or did not have obligations under Kyoto to implement, major emitters like China, India, Brazil and the United States, to get them to the table and realize that if we are going to take on the challenges of addressing greenhouse gas emissions and turning around the risk of climate change and what it can potentially do to our world, we are going to have to take action in the long term. That is the approach of Canada that is being held as a model.

An important critical component of that approach is to engage and involve the provinces and ensure that they have in their hands the resources they need to be able to deliver. A big part of that is that $1.5 billion of ecotrust money, the clean air and climate change trust money. I underline that if we do not get Bill C-52 passed in time, that money will be lost.

This is where the delay and obstruction that the Liberal Party in particular has been conducting has been very harmful to the interests of Canadians who care about the environment, and in fact even those who do not care about the environment, because even if people do not care about it, it does affect them. It is important for all Canadians that they have that healthy environment.

Another example of the money that could be lost if Bill C-52 is not approved, if the Liberal obstruction is successful, is the $400 million for the Canada Health Infoway project. This is state of the art technology so that people can have better health care, taking advantage of technology to improve our health care system. This is something that is very important for the provinces to be able to deliver on the health care for Canadians, for their residents. Again if the Liberals are successful in their delay and obstruction plan this is something that will be lost if the bill is not dealt with and does not receive royal assent in the near future.

There is another one that is of particular of interest to me because it does affect residents in my part of Ontario. In fact the announcement was made in York region where I live and where my constituency is. That is the $225 million to protect endangered spaces, working in conjunction with groups like the Nature Conservancy of Canada to acquire sensitive lands that otherwise might be lost to development, or if not to acquire them, to put in place the kinds of conservation easements to ensure that they will be protected in their natural state for the foreseeable future, for as long as our legal regime remains in place, which is basically for as long as life continues as we know it. That money is very important but that money and the potential to protect those endangered lands will be lost if we cannot get the budget implementation bill passed in the appropriate time.

I also want to talk about the $30 million going to the Rick Hansen Foundation. Rick Hansen is the man in motion, a great Canadian who rolled his wheelchair around the world. He is a very strong personality and a great activist for his cause of spinal cord research. He suffered an injury but he showed that it did not hold him back and he did his around the world tour. I think it was in 1984 when he started his tour, which was an inspiration to all of us. The ongoing work of the foundation from the money he raised then is important. There is $30 million that we would like to see dedicated to that foundation. That $30 million would be lost if the Liberals have their way and they delay and obstruct this bill past the deadline we are dealing with.

For all of those reasons, the budget implementation bill is very important, not just because we want to see it passed, and that is a good reason, but there are actual, real consequences with a ticking clock, because of the fact that a significant amount of the funds are anchored in the previous fiscal year before March 31. That means we have to pass it before the books are closed. Basically we have to get royal assent. We have to get it all the way through before the folks here on Parliament Hill go home to their ridings for the summer. In order to do that, we want to see the potential to deal with this bill for as long as we need to.

I might add that we had hoped to be debating many other bills but the Liberals have chosen to delay this budget implementation bill in every way possible and for as long as they can, as we have seen in the House today and as we saw last Friday and so on. We have tried other measures to speed things along but they have stepped in to block them every time.

The other important bill that we need to deal with is Bill C-23, a Criminal Code amendment. Our justice agenda is very important, and Bill C-23 is a bill to update the Criminal Code provisions. It has come back to the House from committee and it is now at report stage. We would like to deal with that quickly but we will need some time in the House.

Similarly, we are expecting to see Bill C-11 on transport come back from the Senate with amendments. We will need to see whether this House agrees with those amendments or not. Bill C-11 is an important bill that has been around a long time, as members can see by the number, and we have been waiting for about a year to deal with it.

We also have Bill C-31, the election integrity bill. It is in the Senate and the Senate has indicated a desire to make some amendments to the bill. We and, I think, all parties would like to see that bill in this place, or at least three of the parties in the House would. The bill was amended at committee and we, as the government, accepted the amendments proposed by the Liberals and the Bloc.

Unfortunately, the Liberals in the Senate had a very different view of how the bill should work from the Liberals in the House of Commons. The Liberals in the Senate are actually getting rid of the House of Commons Liberal amendment on how to deal with the lists and the disclosure of information to political parties. They actually changed it to a position that was identical to what the Conservatives had originally proposed at committee.

As a result of the Liberals in the Senate deciding that they do not agree with the Liberals in the House of Commons, it means that we as the House of Commons need to deal with that bill one more time once the Senate has dealt with it.

We are waiting for that little ping-pong game between the Liberals in the Senate and the Liberals in the House of Commons to come to an end. When it does end, hopefully we can achieve a resolution on which we can all agree to ensure that future elections will proceed with a greater degree of integrity and probity, something that is very important to all parties and all members of this House.

Another bill that has come back after a long stay at committee is Bill C-42, the Quarantine Act, a very important bill on health matters and something we would like to deal with.

I know of one bill that the opposition House leader, the member for Wascana, has been very generous in showing a willingness to fast track and deal with very quickly and we are hoping to have it at report stage in the House very soon. I think we are in a position where we can do that very soon. I know other parties want some level of scrutiny so the very generous offer of the opposition House leader was one that we took up, but not everybody did. We can seek to get it passed through as many stages as possible in the House as quickly as possible. The bill I am talking about is the one dealing with Olympic symbols. I would like to see it dealt with on the House of Commons side and then go to the Senate.

That is an important bill for the folks who are putting together the 2010 Olympic Games in Whistler and Vancouver. It is important because it deals with copyright, trademarks and the like. We all know how challenging it is to put on these kind of games in this day and age and the ability to protect copyrights, to deal with merchandise and to generate that revenue to support the athletes, the games and the legacy venues that will be constructed as a result of that is important to the people who are involved, whether it be the athletes, the organizers or the people in those communities who will benefit from the legacies.

We are also waiting on other bills, such as Bill C-51, the Nunavik Inuit land claims, and Bill C-59 on video piracy. Bill C-59 was just introduced but the newspapers are saying that it is an important bill because it would create some meaningful consequences for people who engage in the illegal video taping of major films with the ultimate objective of putting them on the black market to sell them illegally without the copyright rights to it. That is something that has been hurting the film industry.

In places like Vancouver and Toronto, in fact all across the country, the film industry has become very important, but those places in particular. It is important that Canada maintains its credibility within that industry and that we support our artists and the people who give value to that intellectual property and that we show leadership as a country in protecting it.

In the future, as we move away from manufactured goods and products to the kinds of services that have more to do with intellectual property, we need to be seen as real leaders in that regard. As I said, media reports are suggesting that all parties actually support Bill C-59, which is why we would like to move it quickly.

Another bill that we recently introduced would support the Red Cross/Red Crescent in the adoption of a new symbol. We need to do that here in Canada through legislation because of a charter that exists. The bill would create an additional non-denominational symbol, which is the Red Crystal, that can be used through ratification of a treaty. If the Red Crescent symbol or the Red Cross symbol creates some discomfort with the local population, the Red Cross/Red Crescent Society would be able to use the Red Crystal symbol as an alternate symbol, which is why as a country we need to recognize and ratify that it would have all the protections under the Geneva convention so that anyone would respect it. However, there would be consequences if people misused the symbol in trying to conduct an offensive military operation. The symbol would need to be used for the purpose intended, which is to protect and save lives in difficult scenes around the world.

All of the bills I have spoken about are on the House calendar. Some are in front of us and we would like to deal with them but others are still at committee.

I did not even speak to the first nations land management, which is a bill that was launched in the Senate.

We would like to see the passage of some bills that are still in committee and which we would like to see back from committee. We thought some would come back a little bit sooner, such as Bill C-6, the amendments to the Aeronautics Act. The committee has been doing clause by clause on Bill C-6 for almost a month now. I am glad to see that the committee is being that attentive but it is a bill that is important and we would like to see it.

The bill that I hope the committee deals with soon is Bill C-32 on impaired driving. I have spoken about the importance of justice and making our streets and communities safer. It was one of the five cornerstone priorities of the Conservatives when we ran in the last election. It was restated on January 4 by the Prime Minister as another priority.

I should acknowledge that we have had some good progress on getting some of those justice bills through the House but it was not easy. Some of them, like Bill C-10 dealing with mandatory penalties for gun crimes, stayed at committee. If one were to listen to politicians speak, one would think there is a consensus on the importance of mandatory penalties for gun crimes. Even the Liberal Party in the last election had that as one of its key elements in its platform.

However, when it came to committee, things were a little bit different. The Liberal Party actually gutted the meaningful parts of the legislation and it held up the legislation at committee for 252 days. Fortunately, that time is past and, thanks to the support of the New Democratic Party, we were able to put some teeth back into that legislation and make it meaningful. The legislation now contains some meaningful mandatory penalties for those gang members and crooks who want to terrorize our communities with guns and commit violent acts. They will face real consequences. When they commit an offence like that they will go to jail. There will be no more “get out of jail free” card and no more house arrest as a solution. They will actually serve real jail time for some of those offences. Where there already were mandatory penalties, they will be tougher and stronger mandatory penalities so that we can take real action.

I know these are important justice issues for Canadians, and that the gun legislation is a part of it, but the other bill that we are waiting for from committee is Bill C-32 on impaired driving. It is very easy to deal with impaired driving on alcohol right now because we have breathalyzers and standards. However, a much more difficult element is driving impaired through the use of other illegal substances, such as controlled or narcotic substances, or, in simple terms, drugs. People who use and abuse drugs and then proceed to drive a vehicle are just as impaired, if not more impaired, as someone who has consumed excessive alcohol. The consequences in terms of the risk to other drivers on the road are just as great. It can change the lives of a family if someone were to die or become injured. The lives of a family could be absolutely shattered when an accident occurs because of that kind of behaviour.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will be continuing with the business of supply.

Tomorrow we hope to conclude third reading of Bill C-52. In answer to the question on priorities, I would point out that Bill C-52, the budget implement bill, is the number one priority of this government. We can talk about other priorities after we see an indication that it will be heading for royal assent. If we do not have it, it will result in the loss of $4.3 billion in 2006-07 year end measures which include: $1.5 billion for the Canada ecotrust for the provinces; $600 million for patient wait times guarantees; $400 million for Canada Health Infoway; $200 million for protection of endangered species; $30 million for the Great Bear rain forest; $600 million for labour market agreements for the provinces; $30 million for the Rick Hansen Foundation; $100 million in aid for Afghanistan; $100 million to Genome Canada; and so on. It is a long list of important priorities financing that will be lost if the bill is not passed by the end of this session in June. That is obviously our number one priority.

Next week will be getting things done for all of us week when we consider a number of bills that are in their final stages of the legislative process.

The following bills will be placed under Government Orders for debate: Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which the Senate reported with amendments and which is now back before the House to receive the approval of the members, and Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments).

We are awaiting the Senate's report with amendments on Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act.

Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, including amendments in relation to foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts, and to provide for the bijural expression of the provisions of that Act, Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Quarantine Act and Bill C-47, An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act, will probably be passed by the House at third reading.

Discussions have taken place with the opposition parties, and there may be consent to fast-track some or all of the following bills: Bill C-59, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unauthorized recording of a movie), Bill S-6, An Act to amend the First Nations Land Management Act and Bill C-51, An Act to give effect to the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

There is also a possibility of quick passage of a new bill entitled “An act to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, an act to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society and the Trademarks Act”, which appears on today's notice paper.

There are a number of other bills I am still hoping we could get included in getting things done for all of us week, provided that they get reported back from committee, in particular, Bill C-6 aeronautics; Bill C-27 dangerous offenders; Bill C-32 impaired driving; and Bill C-44, the bill to grant first nations people the human rights that every other Canadian enjoys. First nations people expect the House to get things done for them as well, so I urge the aboriginal affairs committee to stop delaying Bill C-44 and report it back to the House early next week. It is a priority for this government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Now we are dealing with the motion, that the committee extend its sitting hours by 60 minutes on Mondays and Wednesdays until the completion of Bill C-6 clause-by-clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That the committee extend its sitting hours by 60 minutes on Mondays and Wednesdays starting next Monday, June 11, until the completion of Bill C-6 clause-by-clause.

Mr. Jean.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The motion before the committee is that the committee extend its sitting hours by 60 minutes on Mondays and Wednesdays until the completion of Bill C-6 clause-by-clause.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Certainly. Okay.

I'll come back to some of the testimony that we heard, Mr. Chair.

We heard from Kirsten Brazier, and she said:

If we are really concerned about safety and truly want to become the safest country in the world, then we need to start sharing information with a view to discussing and learning from our mistakes. Instead of sanitizing and restricting safety information--such as the service difficulty reports, Transportation Safety Board accident and incident reports, and the CADORS--we need to make this information more accessible in its entirety with industry so we can learn from it.

That was in her testimony on Bill C-6.

And there's Ken Rubin's testimony:

Already, the effect of the SMS system is felt on access because I've already been denied the first SMS report on Air Transat done in 2003. I got documents, which were dated November, from Transport Canada. They said that as of then there were already 200 secret SMS investigation reports that the public will never get to see, however serious some of the infractions may be.

I noticed in the committee that the minister and officials came to you and said there were only 100 files. Where are the hundreds of SMS reports? When are they going to be made public?

Dozens of regulatory audits were stopped in their tracks, which I or any member of the public could have applied for, but no, they're gone because they've now been transferred, in part, to SMS. This is a power play of the worst order.

I could go on and on, Mr. Chair. This is something that witnesses have continuously cited: the issue around secrecy being not in the public interest.

So we'll await a legal opinion, but I think it would be disingenuous to say that the ATI applies to information that's contained throughout this. This is information for which ultimately there have to be doors. There has to be a system of checks and balances, and essentially what we've been doing today, regrettably, is taking away those checks and balances by not addressing some of the worst problems in Bill C-6 as presented.

We fixed a whole host of other sections of less weight and less impact on Canadians' lives. This is why I can't understand why we're not fixing probably what are the greatest concerns that have been raised by witnesses coming before this committee.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask Mrs. Stanfield if she could present us with a legal opinion for next Monday on what aspects of ATI actually are covered and what are excluded by the bill. What we have is a difference of opinion here on the access to information and what is covered within the bill, so if you could present us with an opinion on how the access to information actually applies to Bill C-6, that would be helpful for all members of the committee, I think.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, this is important legislation. You can't rush it, and we're already starting to make errors.

This is the proposed section that deals with “the collection, analysis and use of information derived from a flight data recorder, then any information collected under the process that comes into the Minister’s possession...”. So it's a different treatment of information, the same situation.

Right now, it's only

available except in the following circumstances:

(a) a court or other body that has jurisdiction to compel the production or discovery...

(b) the information is disclosed

--it doesn't say how--

or made available in a form that prevents it from being related to an identifiable person...

It doesn't say how that is going to occur. So for all intents and purposes, we have paragraphs (a) and (c), that

the Minister considers that disclosing the information or making it available is necessary for the purposes of section 7.1.

That's an important clarification we have now that we didn't have on Monday. Section 7.1 restricts it to suspending, cancelling, or refusing to renew a Canadian aviation document, so we have an even tighter restriction than we had when we discussed this issue on Monday.

Essentially we're putting in place the same structure of information that we've seen has done damage to rail safety. Essentially now you have to go through the court system or, in extreme cases, presumably where people have already died, “if the Minister decides to suspend, cancel or refuse to renew a Canadian aviation document”, then it could be disclosed.

It is in no way in the interest of the public to restrict that information through the court system. It just does not make sense. And it doesn't pass the nod test. If you talk to Canadians and say this is important information that is held internally by a company itself, if it's a good company, if the company has a good reputation, people might say that's understandable.

But we've had companies.... And Judge Moshansky and others have testified to this effect. I think the most compelling testimony was from Kirsten Brazier. She talked about the competitive push to diminish safety standards.

And here we're going to put ourselves in a situation where that information is tightly held and not available to the public. Even through a small door of the restrictions around access to information, it makes absolutely no sense. We've worked very carefully up until now, but today I get the sense that the wheels are starting to fall off what was a careful examination of Bill C-6. It is clearly not in the public interest to force individuals to go through the court system for disclosure of information where lives may hang in the balance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 56. Our orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, November 7, 2006, are Bill C-6, an Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Joining us again today, from the Department of Transport, are Mr. Franz Reinhardt, Susan Stanfield, Merlin Preuss, Jacques Laplante, and Alex Weatherston.

Welcome, again.

(On clause 12)

As we adjourned the last meeting, we were dealing with a government amendment, and I'm advised that it is in front of you again. I hope everyone has had a chance to look at it. We're going to refer to it as the new G-3, which is G-3.1. We had a certain amount of debate around this particular amendment, and I'll open the floor up again for debate, unless the committee is ready to proceed.

I'll open the floor.

Mr. Julian.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Perhaps I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that if such an amendment is adopted for whatever restrictions might be contained in Bill C-6, the Aeronautics Act would therefore not apply and all the information must be divulged?