Transport Committee on May 14th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chairman, it's not my custom to move more slowly than necessarily, but I was rather struck by the forcefulness of the two presenters, and I must say—and I don't know whether anybody else felt the same—that it has put some things in a different frame of mind for me. There's a different perspective from which I'm addressing all this.

Just bear with me for another 30 seconds, if you will.

I thought the last question and answer section dealt more with the professionalism of pilots and the establishment of a professional self-regulating body. I have some level of experience and expertise in that area, and I'm not sure that's where we had been going, through all of this, because in my mind, the SMS system involved a lot more than just simply whether the pilots were competent or not. But on the issue that was raised by two people, the reason I say it's forceful is because for two individuals to come forward and actually use the word “lie”, relative to what the department has been saying regarding this piece of legislation, that has to be a cause of concern for people, not because someone would willy-nilly say that, but because someone would actually have the courage to come before a committee and use that kind of language, without hiding behind any “they say” or an anonymous source.

I say that because today we've received two other submissions that we have not yet had the chance to examine—that is, one from the Air Canada pilots, I believe, and the other one from the professional pilots association.

I'm just wondering whether we are rushing ourselves into a clause-by-clause study without having an opportunity to reflect on what the last two witnesses have said and what these other two submissions will ask us to commit.

So I'm going to suggest for your consideration—I'm not going to present it as a motion, and I'm going to go along with the committee's schedule, if need be—that we take advantage of the fact that the technical experts from the department are here and that they've already submitted clauses for amendment, that we simply hear what they have to say to their clauses and then take it from there, rather than see if they'll provide input as we go along.

I would prefer to hear their rationale today, rather than as per need.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, I think that's a very wise suggestion from Mr. Volpe, given what we've just heard and given the fact that we do have witnesses coming before us. It would make sense to deal with those more general issues, and I would support Mr. Volpe's suggestion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It would be my thought that we would deal with them as we deal with the clause-by-clause. I'm thinking that we're going to see some duplication and that a lot of the recommendations or amendments are going to be reflected.... I don't know how you can deal with them all at once and then go back and deal with them as clause-by-clause. I would think we would deal with them as we got to them...review the suggestions by the pilots' association in comparison to what is presented as an amendment.

Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

It's a fair observation. As I say, I don't mean to be obstructionist, but I really was shocked by what I heard.

I want to take advantage of the fact that the departmental officials are here. At the very least they deserve an opportunity to be able to address the charges that have been put out there for public discourse. I suppose if we don't address it, they'll develop a certain level of acceptance that we'll have to carry through our discussions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The only reason I am suggesting we do it as we go is that we will have these people here throughout the entire process. But the will of committee is what will dictate.

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

We can proceed two ways, Mr. Chairman. You're suggesting that we continue to hear from witnesses on all of the clauses in this bill. That could extend the debate, but I don't have a problem with that. However, Mr. Volpe's suggestion would allow us one go- round before we begin our clause-by-clause study, since we will be asking departmental officials some off-the-cuff questions. Otherwise, we'll be doing the same thing, only in a more gradual manner. I'm not sure that's the best approach.

Mr. Volpe has suggested that we go around the table once and ask questions that are troubling us a little before we proceed to the clause-by-clause study phase. I think it's an interesting idea. However, I do not want to delay matters. I do not have any objections, but I do have to wonder a little. If you agree to allow us to go over the time allotted for the clause-by-clause study, then that would solve the problem. I'd be able to ask all the questions I want, when I want.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have no problem with that. I just think that we will have our witnesses here throughout the entire process....

Are you suggesting that we question the 65 or 68 amendments currently on the file, then the ones submitted by other organizations, and deal with them all in one motion?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

We could start with some general comments or with questions of a more general nature for the witnesses. I suggest we do that, instead of waiting until clause 45 to put all of our questions. Some of these initial questions might make our job easier when we move on to the clause-by-clause study phase.

The government has put forward some amendments which, in spite of everything, are intriguing. We could direct our first major questions to the experts at Transport Canada before proceeding to the clause-by-clause study phase.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Again, I think if we proceed clause by clause and keep the door open, if it moves into the next clause, I think there can be that discussion. I am concerned that if you don't go clause by clause, where does the discussion ever end? This way it allows us to deal with each clause on an individual basis. We have the witnesses here. We have the comparisons. But again, it's whatever the committee chooses to do.

I'll hear more comments.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Personally, I like the idea. We're 40 to 45 minutes away from the end of the day and I don't know what we're going to accomplish in that period of time.

Let's face facts. Mr. Julian has brought up some issues. Monsieur Laframboise has brought up some issues. I have some concerns, myself, on a general basis, about the legislation. As a result, I have proposed some amendments to the government that have been approved and I understand are now at the Department of Justice. I want to get copies before the next meeting.

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

Are they over and above these?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Yes. There are three amendments that I think everybody would be happy with, if I heard the same evidence that everybody else did.

If that is what is being suggested, I don't think it would be a bad thing to have a general discussion to ask the witnesses about specific issues of concern to us and the effect of clauses in that particular vein. I see that could be beneficial for moving forward on the clause-by-clause on Wednesday. It would get off the table and off our chests exactly what we feel this piece of legislation should reflect at the end of the day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Bélanger.

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

Along the same lines, Mr. Chairman, perhaps given that we still have some time, I would like to hear the government amendments, if at all possible. There are five of them, I gather, so far. I'd like to know what they are, because they might cause other proposals to be removed or withdrawn entirely. As my colleague Mr. Volpe has said, I would also like a chance to look at the proposals from the Professional Pilots' Association and the Canadian Federal Pilots' Association, to see how they mesh—if they mesh—with the pile of amendments that have been received and I haven't fully digested yet.

So I'd encourage us to ask questions to clear the air, and find out what the government amendments are, so that next time, whenever that is, if it's not Wednesday, we can get on to the clause-by-clause and perhaps cut most of the underbrush that we'll need to cut.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

I had a question, through you, Mr. Chair, for Mr. Jean.

Are there government amendments, then, coming forward this week?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Actually, I was hoping to have them by 4 p.m. They're obviously not here. Quite frankly, I thought they'd be here before the witnesses appeared and that they would be circulated. My understanding is that they're on their way via a person right now. So they will be submitted to all members before the day is gone, hopefully. That's the intention.

Just to clear the air regarding the amendments and what I heard from the members opposite and witnesses—on the removal, for instance, of regulatory oversight, which is a concern to all members—I would rather that you wait and see the amendments. But I also think it's very important to have a general discussion. I think everybody would agree with what I've just said in regard to some of the concerns. Then we should move forward on Wednesday in a more affirmative way.

I apologize for not having them here beforehand; it's just a clerical issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

I have a supplementary, Mr. Chair.

In that case, given the witnesses we've heard from today, could we presume that if any of the other members around this table have additional amendments to provide by tomorrow, they could do so?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I was just going to address that. I know that we did set a deadline of Friday, and I guess I am disappointed that the government amendments have come this late in the process. But I'm certainly prepared to open it up to a round of discussion, and hopefully the amendments promised for today will be here today, and we can deal with them at the next meeting.

With that, I presume we want to go to a round of questioning.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I think you're finding consensus on my initial suggestion, according to Mr. Jean, and I think Mr. Jean accepts that we'll also have an opportunity to present amendments as late as tomorrow, if that's okay with you?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

You can't suck and blow at the same time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You can try.