Evidence of meeting #55 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was sms.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I don't. It's definitely not here. It may be elsewhere, and perhaps that's what you're referring to, but it's definitely not here.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
You're saying that the way it reads, it limits the protection to the internal reporting?
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
It limits it to the reporting that they have done internally. That is very clear, and it's effectively worded, but I don't see the protection for the individual who then has to step outside of the system because the company is not taking action.
Perhaps Ms. Stanfield can help us. I don't see it.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
We're willing to consider.... Of course, we drafted this to ensure that people report through the system first. We don't want people to go elsewhere. If they report through the system first, they are protected.
I don't know if there is another way of wording it, but they have to report through the system first. If they don't report through the system, that would encourage disgruntled employees to go directly to a public place or to the media to say, as we saw not long ago, things that are unfounded. So they need to report through the system first.
Is the way it's drafted there sufficient? We thought it was sufficient. Is there a way of maybe amending it? I don't know.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
It seems acceptable at first glance, but I am wondering whether it might not have repercussions on other amendments which have been tabled by either ourselves or by other members. For example, BQ-19 will be presented a bit later on.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
This one was meant to cover all the proposed whistle-blower protection. This one could encompass all the others. This one is considered sufficient to address--
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
If this was adopted, amendment BQ-19 would have to be withdrawn. Is that what you mean?
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Yes.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
We have to be honest and look at all the things that are similar together.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Just for information, am I to understand that your intent is to cover off all the other amendments?
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
That's right.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
That doesn't necessarily give me complete assurance that you have, or that you've satisfied the other members with it. As we move forward, we'll have more information after we review this and see how it impacts the rest of the bill.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I have to know, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to put other amendments at risk by voting on this one. I could try to table an amendment, since the committee seems open to the idea of adopting an article which addresses our concerns. Do you understand?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
It's very difficult to accept this amendment with the intent of covering off all the other concerns, but without a chance to review it, we really can't make a comment from this position.
Go ahead, Mr. Bélanger.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
If I may reminisce for a moment--and it'll be a short moment--twice this committee has come to a similar situation, once on the bill and once on another issue, and twice the committee sought to perhaps suspend deliberations to allow others to have a go at this and take a look. Perhaps we've come to another such moment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I think we have. I would suggest that we stop here for today. I don't think we can defer it and move forward, because we're going to be coming back and forth.
I would suggest that the department sit down with the people who have presented amendments that go forward from this point and try to come to some conclusion as to whether it satisfies the intent of their amendments so that we can deal with it at the next meeting.
The fact is that this is an all-encompassing amendment, and it may impact all the amendments throughout.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
We always offer to give explanation to any member of the committee to make sure there's a good understanding. We're always available to discuss, if need be.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I understand. I can't make anybody sit down, but it would certainly make the committee run far more smoothly if we made an attempt to at least cover off what we've done today and what we're looking at in the future amendments.
Go ahead, Mr. Volpe.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering whether other members would agree to what I've suggested on two other occasions so far, which is that some of these be grouped as being similar. The only way we can do that is if we can have somebody with some expertise address these from a procedural point of view. From the point of view of intention, which is what I thought I heard you say, I don't think you're ever going to get any consensus. I don't know what everybody else's intention might be on a clause-by-clause basis. I'm not sure that they would reflect my own.
I'm for making a decision that says let's come to a point where we can agree on what it is that we're voting on. I've read all of the amendments. In my own mind, I've already made a decision on which ones could be grouped, and in fact, that's how I've dealt with them for myself. Everyone has his or her own approach, but we are constantly referring back to either the department or to the chair to help us through a particular amendment.
While that's helpful from a legislator's perspective, what is much more efficient from the perspective of the responsibility of a legislator is that we reach a decision that will be useful and productive as quickly as possible. I say this not out of naïveté or out of feigned concern, but out of genuine interest that if Bill C-6 is a piece of legislation that is intended for the public good and safety, then all of its articles and amendments be considered in that light. I can't think of a more counterproductive use of a legislator's time than to constantly waiver on whether these amendments or these clauses fit the general definition of the responsibility of a legislator on this item.
If it is not the wish of the committee to deal with Bill C-6, fine. But then it will be dealt with on an item-by-item basis. So would you please--and maybe other members will disagree--over the course of the next 24 hours have your legislative clerk and your clerk group these for us? All members around the table have the same information as I have. I'm not sure we need you to hold our hands, but at least if you group them, we'll be able to deal with these as a large item. We all know what we want out of these amendments.
Without sounding like I'm really upset, we can have a more productive use of another hour and a half of time than we did in the last one. And everybody has a right. I think Mr. Laframboise said it properly: we all have our democratic rights that need to be respected. But along with democratic rights, this is a responsibility for all of us to be germane in our discussions on the clause-by-clause.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you, Mr. Volpe, and I can assure you that clause 12 obviously is creating its issues. We have them all grouped as far as when they're presented is concerned. We can make that comment on which one is in conflict with another. Once we get through clause 12, I would suggest that it's going to be a lot easier to discuss. The very fact that this amendment was brought forward today with no consultation to the front table officers does create a bit of a problem when we're trying to give advice to the rest of the membership as to where there's conflict and where there isn't.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Well, there was, you're absolutely right. And I'll defer to Mr. Bélanger's statements on this, but the more we talk, the more some things get refined.
I have to disagree that there wasn't consultation. We had a reform to G-3 last week, and the government worked on it some more. I'm not going to give them any credit yet, because we haven't voted on it, but certainly we have three variations of G-3. The latest one, the one that was presented today, will be considered on its own merits.
I think all of us already knew what G-3 was. The government has gone to G-3 one and G-3 two, so we all know the context and we know the arguments that led to that discussion. I think for us to delay making decisions on some of these amendments because we want to deal with each one of them individually, when some of us are going to be asking you....
You're eventually going to have to make a decision, Mr. Chair, about whether these have a sequential impact on another amendment or, preceding that amendment, cause us to reflect in consequence--as we did, for example, with BQ-16, when Mr. Laframboise, after some debate, said he would withdraw it. I thanked him for that, as I think most members did. It was a genuine response. But I thought I read in that response....
You know, if you had told me earlier on that we were grouping some of these things together, I could have made my arguments more cogently against the central amendment that would have had an impact on my own amendment. And that's all I'm asking.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Mr. Chairman, if you give me a minute, I would like to express a wish. I don't know if it can be fulfilled. I mentioned this earlier to the officials and I also mentioned it to you. I find the structure of the bill and the bill itself cumbersome.
Just look at section 5.3, which contains designated organizations, management systems, flight data analysis agreements, voluntary reporting, and other things. It goes all the way up to section 5.3901 and that's not the end of it. It's very confusing. The same section, or subsection, contains so many subjects that they should be separated to clarify things. Would it be possible—I don't think so, but perhaps the committee should ask for it—to reorganize the bill in order to make it more clear?
I understand that we are working from the structure of the former bill, or of a law which goes back 15 years, but when a piece of legislation is thoroughly reviewed, I think we should also think about reviewing its structure.