Transport Committee on May 28th, 2007

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With regard to the last part of the discussion and access to information, my colleague Mr. Laframboise might have an answer when we come to section 43 and to proposed amendment LIB-8. If the amendment is passed, it will change the scope of exceptions put forward by the government in Bill C-6.

To come back to amendments BQ-6, LIB-2 and NDP-3, I have a question on a somewhat different issue. I will put the question to our researchers and legal advisor, and it concerns departmental officials, or the people moving the amendment that refers to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, and the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act.

Are the people who drafted those amendments for my colleagues aware of all provisions in those two statutes and the regulations flowing from them? Are they satisfied with those statutes? That is homework I have not done, Mr. Chairman. Can the researchers tell us whether there could be unforeseen obstacles we should know about in the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, or in the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act? Here, we are including references to statutes I have not read, and I certainly don't know all the existing regulations that flow from those statutes.

I would therefore like to know if there could be unforeseen obstacles or conflicts arising from there.

[John Christopher, Committee Researcher]

I think the Justice lawyer could speak to that.

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

I am waiting for the government's response. That is not the answer I was looking for. I would like to know the answer our researchers and legal advisors will give.

Do you want some time to think about it?

[John Christopher]

We'd need more time.

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

May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we perhaps put that one off until our next sitting? Once we have that answer we can rapidly dispose of this one. Either we adopt BQ-6 or NDP-3, or consider LIB-2 instead, or none of them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We would have to do that with agreement, I believe, from the committee, and it would be deferring it until we get the legal opinion to Monsieur Bélanger's question.

I'll go to Monsieur Laframboise for his comment.

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

That is fine with me, provided they answer the question properly. My advisors tell me that, under Bill C-6, some information held by the minister could be disclosed only with the minister's agreement. Thus, under the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act the board might be unable to obtain some information if the minister refused to disclose it.

You say that the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board can obtain all the information it needs, but under Bill C-6, the minister has the power to keep some information confidential. But I don't want the minister to keep information confidential in an investigation. That's a kind of situation where I find myself asking questions, like Mr. Bélanger. Who is right here?

In the same vein, on February 2, 2006, the department issued a directive restricting the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. The department should be more open and allow our researchers to have access to all the documents that are pertinent so that I can make an enlightened decision.

Mr. Chairman, I have no difficulty with Mr. Bélanger's request, provided that our researchers have the time they need for the analysis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Is it the will of the committee to stand clause 2 until we get that information, and we will resume it once we have it?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

(Clause 2 allowed to stand)

(Clause 3 agreed to)

(On clause 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We have amendment BQ-7 on page 13.

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

The amendment reads as follows:

4. (1) The portion of section 4.2 of the Act before paragraph (d) is replaced by the following:

4.2 (1) The Minister shall ensure that aeronautical activities are conducted at all times in a manner that meets the highest safety standards established by international organizations, including the International Civil Aviation Organization, and in the discharge of that obligation the Minister may, by regulation,

Obviously, the purpose of this is clearly to ensure the government is committed to complying with international standards, including those of the International Civil Aviation Organization.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are there any comments?

Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have taken a somewhat different approach with amendment NDP-3. We talk about the highest safety standards.

I think that my goal and Mr. Laframboise's are the same. The goal of everyone around this table is to ensure that the aviation system is the safest in the world. If we talk about the highest safety standards, regardless of whether they are international or not, I think that would achieve what Canadians want. That's why this change bothers me a bit.

I am prepared to accept Mr. Laframboise's amendment, but I would like to go a little further. I do believe that members of the committee want to ensure that we are talking about the highest possible safety standards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Actually, looking at the two amendments, while I respect Mr. Laframboise's position, I was quite convinced, until Mr. Julian put forward his argument, that his was the best amendment, NDP-3.1.

You've persuaded me out of your argument, Mr. Julian. I apologize for that. I was convinced until you spoke.

Could we hear from the department?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Reinhardt, anyone?

[Franz Reinhardt]

Well, we're dealing with section 4.2, the obligations of the minister, and by accepting the amendment, we're sort of converting those obligations into a regulation-making authority. That may create a problem.

If you look at the proposed purpose section, 3.1, there is a recognition of international obligation. And if you look at the regulation-making authority under proposed paragraph 4.9(w), it's clear that the regulation shall meet the ICAO requirements.

So I'm not sure we need the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

I think it's actually proposed paragraph 4.9(z).

[Franz Reinhardt]

Paragraph 4.9(z) in this version, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Preuss.

[Merlin Preuss, Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport]

I have just an observation about the way that's worded.

If you're binding the minister to international standards, you should be aware that you may be defeating the very purpose here. Generally speaking, ICAO standards are below Canadian standards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mrs. Stanfield, same comment?

[Susan Stanfield, Chief, Aviation Security Regulations, Department of Transport]

That is basically what I was going to say.

As well, the way it's drafted, you may be fettering the minister's ability to actually set a higher standard than what ICAO establishes. So it's not only a case of ICAO setting a low standard or the minimum standard; you may actually be preventing the minister from setting anything higher.

Plus, you need to know that the way ICAO works, sometimes they set standards that aren't actually workable or acceptable in the Canadian context. Canada creates its own rules, rules that Canada believes meet an equivalent level or address the problem, and files the difference with ICAO.

So I think it might be a problem if the minister's discretion were fettered that way. It might defeat the purpose of what you were trying to achieve.