Transport Committee on May 28th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Order, please.

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting 53. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, November 7, 2006, we are here to study Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Again joining us from the Department of Transport are Franz Reinhardt, Susan Stanfield, and Merlin Preuss. Christopher Shelley is from—

[Lieutenant-Colonel Jacques Laplante, Director, Flight Safety, Department of National Defence]

Sir, I'm replacing Colonel Shelley. He had to go away on flight safety business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

All right. Thank you.

Alex Weatherston is with us today as well.

Just before we start, I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Volpe.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm delighted to be back after a week's absence. Before we get into the business of the committee, I want to thank all members of the committee for their expressions of sympathy and condolences over the course of the last week. It was much appreciated. I guess it speaks to the fact that civility prevails everywhere. Thank you very much.

Back to business, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thanks, Mr. Volpe.

(On clause 2)

When we last broke, we were dealing with BQ-6, Monsieur Laframboise's motion on page 10. We had some debate around it. I don't know if people had more to add.

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

Obviously, you understand that I was going to maintain the amendment moved, BQ-6. First of all, I believe that provisions in the Canada Labour Code would supercede this legislation. Even the Liberal Party moved a similar amendment. With regard to the statutes added in amendment BQ-6, they are the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act.

I could put forward a number of additional arguments in support of maintaining this condition in the amendment. However, among other things, it would be important for access to information issues to ensure that Bill C-6 does not contradict the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act. It is important for us as lawmakers to show to Transport Canada and to all stakeholders that, under Bill C-6, the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act would prevail over Bill C-6, with regard to access to information among other things. Some provisions in Bill C-6 restrict access to information.

It is very important for us to ensure that access to information is always authorized at the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board. In spite of some of the comments made, we know Bill C-6 can restrict some powers under the act, with respect to access to information among other things.

However, even if the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, stipulates that its authority is exclusive, it is important that such authority be maintained. In February 2006, Transport Canada published a policy statement that among other things restricted part of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. Transport Canada must understand that the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act still prevails over Bill C-6. Transportation of dangerous goods is an activity that must be regulated. That is why Parliament passed a law to that effect in 1992.

That is what I had to add, Mr. Chairman. I maintain the amendment moved, BQ-6.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree with Mr. Laframboise. We are talking only about cases where there would be a conflict between Bill C-6 and the three existing statutes. If such a conflict were to arise, the other statutes would prevail. I don't see how people can be opposed to that. It's common sense to have the Canada Labour Code, Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act prevail in the event of a conflict with Bill C-6. I think it makes sense, and therefore I support Mr. Laframboise's amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Just for the information of the committee, when we talk about BQ-6, we are identifying NDP-3 as identical. So they are on the same....

Mr. Jean.

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

I did notice that, actually, Mr. Chair.

I much prefer the wording in LIB-2, which is obviously very similar, except, of course, it doesn't include the other two acts.

I'm just wondering if Justice and Transport could comment. After listening to what Mr. Laframboise and Mr. Julian have said, do you find that there would be any serious legal ramifications in the future?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Reinhardt.

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

Well, first, when Mr. Laframboise says “access to information”, I understand what he means is access to the investigators of the TSB, the Transportation Safety Board, so that they have access to evidence.

You're not talking about access to information in terms of the Access to Information Act.

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

No, that's it. I wanted to be perfectly clear that the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board can obtain all the information it needs, and obtain everything that might be available to assist in its investigation.

[Franz Reinhardt]

I've listened to your arguments, and I must say that we do of course recognize that the statutes you have listed prevail over the Aeronautics Act. That is not a problem.

However, as I was saying the other day, section 14 of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act is very clear with regard to the board's priority with respect to any other investigation that might take place.

In the same fashion, clause 4.2(2) of Bill C-6 stipulates that:

An investigation carried out by the Minister of Transport under paragraph (1)(n) may not have as its purpose the making of findings as to causes and contributing factors of an aviation accident or incident.

That is to allow the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board to take priority. Their investigators also have all the necessary powers in their legislation. In my view, as things stand, those statutes already prevail. The Department of Justice has informed me that we should not create a precedent by including references in bills that give priority to other bills, when the latter priority is already clear.

That is the only point I wanted to make.

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

Except in matters relating to access to information. Then, when we make reference in subsequent legislation to access to information legislation, which according to what you say prevails anyway, there must be no confusion regarding information available to investigators of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board. There's a small grey area here. I believe it is important there should be no grey area at all.

[Franz Reinhardt]

If I may take the floor once again, I believe we should be making a distinction between available evidence and access to information. In general, in the government, when we talk about access to information we are referring to the Access to Information Act.

What you are trying to do is ensure that investigators at the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board have access to all evidence and information required to conduct their investigations.

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

Exactly.

[Franz Reinhardt]

That is very clear in their legislation. Section 19 of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act gives them all the powers they need. They even have the power to subpoena witnesses, and so on.

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

Except that—

[Franz Reinhardt]

Allow me to read this provision very quickly:

Where an investigator believes on reasonable grounds that there is, or may be, at or in any place, any thing relevant to the conduct of an investigation of a transportation occurrence, the investigator may, subject to subsection (2), enter and search that place for any such thing, and seize any such thing that is found in the course of that search.

Further on, the act stipulates that the investigator may require persons to submit to medical examination.

Under that act, they have all the powers they need, Mr. Laframboise.

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

Except that my advisors tell me the new confidentiality clauses here in Bill C-6 could restrict those two powers investigators have under section 19. Subsection 19(9)(a) and sections (10) and (15.1) establish the information which must be produced in an investigation. The new confidentiality clauses in Bill C-6 could thus restrict those two powers. In my view, nothing must impose restrictions on those powers.

[Franz Reinhardt]

With all due respect, we have reviewed those provisions and we are of the opinion that they in no way restrict the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board from obtaining information.

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

So when my advisors tell me that it might happen, I would ask—once again, because insisting too much never hurt anyone—that you include the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act to make it clear to everyone.

You understand, of course, that this is always for the purposes of the investigation. We have the same goal. My issue is that I don't want to allow a legal conflict to lead to a situation where one day the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board will ask us why we passed a bill that restricted them in conducting their investigations. I don't want that to happen.

[Franz Reinhardt]

I would like to add something to help us achieve a better understanding. You said that some information is protected in the Aeronautics Act, but wherever it is protected, that protection is null and void if there is a court order to obtain information. In such cases, the information can be provided. That is why I am telling you the protection is there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bélanger.