Transport Committee on May 30th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. This is meeting number 48, and we are meeting 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 again today from the Department of Transport, we have Mr. Franz Reinhardt, Susan Stanfield, and Merlin Preusse; and from the Department of National Defence, Jacques Laplante and Alex Weatherston. Welcome.

When we adjourned at the last meeting, we were discussing clause 4. The debate was surrounding NDP-3.1 as amended.

(On clause 4)

In discussions with Mr. Julian, we had agreed as a committee to change the letter from (d) to (b), but upon further discussion and discovery we found that the (b) should be (a). We're going to pass that around.

I welcome Mr. Julian. We are discussing changing the letter from (b) to (a). It was your amendment that we were discussing at that time.

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

Perfect. And the Conservatives are supporting it. That's wonderful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm not sure I can speak on their behalf, but I would ask you to speak on the amendment. Then we can further debate and hopefully move forward.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I apologize for being late. The votes have changed the schedule for us.

What we sought from the clerk was clarification around the exact wording of the amendment. As I mentioned at our Monday meeting, there were some problems with it. There were two elements. One was the mention of the paragraph and what was actually being deleted. What we confirmed with the drafter was that the intention was to use it as a preamble for that section so that no paragraph would be deleted.

Secondly, there was an inconsistency between the French version and the English version, which we've run into on other occasions, where the French version

very clearly states "that meets the highest safety standards", and

in the English version, from the amendment we talked about on Monday, it talked about the high safety standards established.

The French version is the correct one.

You will see that the wording around “established” is no longer in the English translation of the French term.

Those are the two clarifications.

I appreciate the work of the drafting clerk. The individual apologized, and I can understand because they were working under a great deal of pressure with a lot of amendments.

I'm glad they've added this clarification around the intention of NDP-3.1. Given the discussions we've had around the Bloc amendment, it meets with what we are all attempting to achieve, which is making the highest possible safety standards part and parcel of this bill. I would hope that we have support from all four parties around the table for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I would advise the committee members that because there is a substantive change from the original motion, we've circulated the new motion, but we need agreement that we will accept this as the motion put forward by Mr. Julian for debate.

Is everyone okay with that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

The department has prepared an option, on the basis of what Mr. Julian and others said last time, that is translated in both official languages. I think that would be satisfactory to all, and I'd ask the clerk if I could have that circulated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have to advise the committee that although that motion can be circulated, we still have to deal with the motion that is on the floor unless, by agreement, Mr. Julian were to withdraw it.

Mr. Jean.

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

I see no difficulty with it being before. We're working in cooperation, Mr. Chair, and whatever is the best for this section would be great.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are there any comments on Mr. Julian's amendment NDP-3.1? We did have debate, so I'm presuming—

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

As circulated today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes, as circulated today.

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

That change comprises paragraph (b) going to (a), and the elimination of the word “establish”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes, which does change the motion initially put forward. It was fairly substantive, so we did get agreement for the committee to accept this as a motion put forward by Mr. Julian as amendment NDP-3.1.

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

I'm wondering, before we get to vote on that, Mr. Chair, if the members can look at the clause put forward by the department as being reasonable in the circumstances and whether or not they would agree with that clause instead. It's very similar, but it is somewhat different. It is actually a little bit expansive to what was proposed by Mr. Julian and may in fact be more satisfactory.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I know that it may be difficult to be reviewing one amendment while considering another, but I'll give the committee a minute just to give me an acknowledgement that they've received it and had a chance to glance at it.

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

I have a question for the department or for Mr. Jean. The government amendment uses the expression "the highest possible safety and security standards" rather than "the highest safety standards". Why use those terms? The expression "the highest possible" is less strong than "the highest". Is there a reason for this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm sorry, I missed that.

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

I am talking about the government amendment moved by Mr. Jean, where the proposed change to clause 4.2 ends in: "the highest possible safety and security standards." In Mr. Julian's amendment, however, the comparable provision reads "the highest safety standards". Why not use "the highest standards" and replace with "the highest possible"?

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

The only explanation I can give you is the way that legislation is drafted by drafters in the Department of Justice. The legislation is drafted in legal language of French and English at the same time. Those are the expressions normally used. In English, these provisions read:

“in a manner that meets the highest possible safety and security standards.”

If we compare the French version to the English version, we obtain an expression of intent which is genuinely "the highest possible safety and security standards".

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

In that case, if you wanted to use the English wording, you could have taken out the word "possible" as well.

That means the highest safety and security standards.

[Franz Reinhardt]

That is what the English reads.

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

No, it reads "possible safety".

[Franz Reinhardt]

It means the highest possible safety and security standards.