Transport Committee on May 16th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting 52. The orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, November 7, 2006, Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Joining us today from the Department of Transport are Franz Reinhardt, Susan Stanfield, and Merlin Preuss; and from the Department of National Defence, Christopher Shelley and Alex Weatherston.

Today, as previously discussed, we're going to deal with clause-by-clause of Bill C-6.

Mr. Jean.

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

Just very quickly, there were some requests made by committee members last time, and I want to provide to them copies of certain materials, one being the existing regulations and new regulatory proposals on safety management systems. We have a copy for everybody here today, in French and English.

Also, we have a copy of a release, just for the members' interest, from Teamsters Canada in relation to Bill C-6, and I will ask the clerk to distribute that as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, actually, further to that, I was asking the parliamentary secretary if the other material that has been requested by this committee, some of which we've been waiting weeks for, has been distributed to the clerk.

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

I would suggest, first of all, that it has been less than weeks since the request was made.

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

For some of them, though—

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

“Weeks” is a two-week period. I think it was last Tuesday. So I will let the department answer, but I believe the information has been accumulated.

[Franz Reinhardt, Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport]

The information is on its way. It's being processed through the normal channel and should be here this afternoon or, at the latest, tomorrow morning.

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

Okay.

[Franz Reinhardt]

It was processed, I can tell you.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

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

The same is true in my case, Mr. Chair. It has to do with the number of check pilots. I asked Mr. Grégoire to submit to us—

[Franz Reinhardt]

The information has been obtained, Mr. Laframboise, and is being forwarded to you.

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

Perfect. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I think we're going to proceed now. We'll start with clause 1.

Mr. Jean.

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

I'm wondering, Mr. Chair, if that particular clause, just because it relates to the bill itself, could be put to the end and be dealt with after we've dealt with all the other clauses, simply because it will obviously frame what the description of it is in the first place.

So if we could, just as a matter of cooperation.... I think that's, quite frankly, the only clause that might lead to some difficulty between the parties, simply because of what the bill is in its entirety and what the description is. I think it would be constructive to put it at the end, simply to wait until all the clauses have been dealt with and deal with it at that time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, I have to disagree with Mr. Jean. I don't see a real problem between the parties. The Liberals have submitted an amendment that is very close, the Bloc has submitted an amendment that is very close, and the NDP has submitted an amendment that is very close. So I think we have a responsibility, given that the parties seem to generally agree about the direction in clause 1, to tackle that first.

It also does—Mr. Jean is absolutely right—set a tone for all the subsequent amendments. We would have to be, I think, faithful to the initial discussions around clause 1, so it makes sense for us to tackle that issue first. I don't think it would take long, because there seems to be fairly broad agreement. From there, we have certainly established what the benchmark should be as we go through and, I think it's fair to say, make some changes to this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

That was my concern. I heard from the department and I understand that legal services might have some input in this, but my understanding is that, first of all, they need a broad definition under this clause in particular, depending on what happens with the bill. So it would be premature to have this definition come forward and define a bill that hasn't yet been defined or hasn't been set—at least the clauses haven't been—and my proposal doesn't change anything as far as the majority deciding. Certainly the will of the committee would rule, but the concern by the department—and I'll let them speak for themselves—is that, quite frankly, the definition as proposed limits the bill and the capability of the bill, and as such, I'm just suggesting that it go to the end and be dealt with at that time.

It doesn't change anything about what is included and what the other parties' positions would be. It just gives the ability to put it at the end, because it does deal with some contentious issues and does limit the scope of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Monsieur Bélanger.

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

I've listened carefully, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps the answer to my question might help me to make a decision here.

If we put the clause off and it's eventually changed according to one or two or three of the amendments we've had put to us, could that possibly require us to then go back to the whole bill?There's a sequence here for a reason, I presume. Once you've defined what the safety management system is, that definition may affect various clauses as we go through. I wouldn't want to do the exercise and then debate this and make a decision and have to do it again.

That's my concern. Perhaps I could have some response to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The committee can make the decision to move the clause to the end.

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

I know that, but I wouldn't want to do the whole exercise twice because we've moved this one to the end.