Transport Committee on June 6th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 56. Our orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, November 7, 2006, are 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, are Mr. Franz Reinhardt, Susan Stanfield, Merlin Preuss, Jacques Laplante, and Alex Weatherston.

Welcome, again.

(On clause 12)

As we adjourned the last meeting, we were dealing with a government amendment, and I'm advised that it is in front of you again. I hope everyone has had a chance to look at it. We're going to refer to it as the new G-3, which is G-3.1. We had a certain amount of debate around this particular amendment, and I'll open the floor up again for debate, unless the committee is ready to proceed.

I'll open the floor.

Mr. Julian.

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

I just wanted to see what the changes were in G-3.1 from the old G-3--not the variation from the original one. There's been a variation since Monday, am I not correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The variation from Monday is actually in reflection of some of the comments you made, Mr. Julian, in an attempt to find a compromise position that might find a settlement to this particular clause. I would ask the department to identify the specific changes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I just want to clarify. We are talking about G-3.1?

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

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That is the new G-3, and you're going to advise the committee--

[Franz Reinhardt]

There was an amendment made to that G-3.1. It's coming.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

There's another amendment to what I have in front of me?

[Franz Reinhardt]

What happened is that at the end of the meeting last week there was discussion and a question that followed from Mr. Julian. We've slightly amended the proposed subsection (4) to reflect those concerns. We believe that we have captured the--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm just going to stop you there. I guess I am a little confused again. I have a G-3.1 in front of me, and I have a G-3 revised motion. Are we talking about the same thing here?

[Franz Reinhardt]

I would have to say yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

If I'm looking at this correctly, I'm thinking that G-3.1 and your revised G-3 are the same, but this does create some confusion for the committee.

Mr. Jean.

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

Perhaps I could speak to it very quickly, Mr. Chair. The changes made, first of all, were from “may” to “shall”, and it was only in English, not in the French text. This change obviously came about originally as a result of two union groups--specifically, ALPA and ACPA--in relation to their concerns and also those of Mr. Julian, who wanted to have some expansion of whistle-blower protection unless, of course, the action disclosed is not in good faith or is wilful or intentional. That's where these changes come into play.

Again, Mr. Chair, I apologize on behalf of the government for the lateness of this. The reality is that we are, as Mr. Julian said, trying to find a compromise to some things that were raised by the other parties, which we thought would be just as effective or more effective. Of course, we've only had two days to make the changes and get translation as well.

[Franz Reinhardt]

For greater clarity, Mr. Chair, the paper that was distributed, which reads G-3 revised motion, should be the latest and last one on G-3.

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

It actually shows, Mr. Chair, if I may--and excuse me--what was crossed out in relation to how it was changed and also the underline of “shall” instead of “may”, which was in the English text beforehand. And of course there are all the underlines in proposed subsection (4), specifically “to any person” and “provided that the information has first been disclosed in good faith”, etc.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

To clarify, in your information packages there is a document titled G-3.1. Now we have the document that Mr. Reinhardt referred to as G-3 revised motion. In reality we are talking about G-3.1, but we're substituting the text from the G-3 revised motion. It's more a technical and numbering issue. The final one that was referred to by Mr. Reinhardt will go into the books as G-3.1, if there's agreement. It's a technical thing.

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

That's the one that will be—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes.

This is the amendment we're talking about. If the committee agrees, that's how we'll deal with it.

Mr. Laframboise.

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

Mr. Reinhardt, an employee who would like to provide information to anyone whatever will be protected, provided he has already provided it in the context of the safety management system process.

[Franz Reinhardt]

That's correct.

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

Is that the objective?

[Franz Reinhardt]

Yes.

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

I just want to ask Ms. Stanfield if there are any other provisions in the bill that would mitigate or diminish the wording. The wording here is a significant improvement, but I want to make sure there are no other clauses to which these amendments would be subjected.

[Susan Stanfield, Legal Counsel, Department of Transport]

Honestly, this is the first I've considered that, so I can't really give you a definitive answer. I would have to take some time to study the bill.