Evidence of meeting #57 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 employee.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, based on a previous commitment made, can I have a few minutes of the committee's indulgence and just have a bit of a recess here?
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, I'm still looking for a friendly amendment. I'm not sure if I have one or not.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
I don't think we do. At the present point we have G-6 on the floor. I'm gathering there isn't unanimous agreement to withdraw--I see Mr. Julian--so therefore we will vote, because a motion to withdraw has to be by unanimous consent, or we vote on the motion.
Are you ready for the question on G-6?
Mr. Julian, do you want to speak?
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Yes, I want to speak on this bizarre situation where the Conservatives have actually done the right thing and want to pull it off the table.
Liberal
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
The motion before you is G-6.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 42 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 43)
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
On clause 43, all three are basically the same, so we'll move to Lib-8.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Mr. Bélanger withdraws the amendment. It was not moved. Therefore, all three are the same.
We don't have the agreement.
On amendment NDP-13, Mr. Julian.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I'm going to move amendment NDP-13, Mr. Chair. We have the opinion from the Library of Parliament on Bill C-6 and the Access to Information Act. This has been forwarded to the committee.
What we have is essentially now seven new sections that will take away from access to information. What we have currently under the Aeronautics Act is two sections already listed in schedule II of the Access to Information Act. Essentially, we would be adding the following: sections 5.392; 5.393; subsections 5.394(2); 5.397(2); 22(2); paragraph 24.1(4); and subsection 24.7.
So what we have is a widespread exemption from disclosure under access to information. That is clearly not in the interests of the travelling public. It simply is not; there's no other way to put it. We heard very strong testimony. I would take the time of the committee to read through some of the testimony of Ken Rubin and other witnesses who came forward, if members of the committee want to hear that testimony repeated for them.
Essentially, what has been very clear from testimony from the beginning is that you can't simply say we'll have Bill C-6 and will take away wholesale mandatory exemptions from disclosure in the Access to Information Act. The public needs often to get this information. Under the Access to Information Act we've already seen that even now it's difficult to get information out. We've talked about some of the applications under access to information where text arrives blanked out that took years to actually come through the system.
If we go from two to adding seven new sections where there is mandatory exemption, then what we're simply doing is locking away that information. And it's public domain information. When people choose their airline, when they choose which flight to put their family on, they have to know.
I have no doubt that we need to strengthen the access to information provisions, so that we're not moving from two to nine sections where there's mandatory exemption. We need to provide the checks and balances, and we need to make sure that even though we have a very convoluted and complicated and long process under access to information—this information just doesn't get shoved out the door, but takes a lot of diligence and hard work to get—at least those provisions exist, so that eventually the truth will come out.
My fear is that if we do not water down what are quite radical portions of this act, then the truth will never come out. In a case where companies may act in an irresponsible way and lives may hang in the balance, I think our responsibility as parliamentarians is to make sure that there is no watering down of access to information. It is complicated and long now. We can't make it virtually a vault, from which that safety information will never come out into the public domain. That's why I'm moving amendment NDP-13.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Is there any further debate?
You've heard the arguments. Are you ready for the question on amendment NDP-13?
(Amendment negatived)
Liberal
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Thank you.
(Clause 43 agreed to)
(Clauses 44 to 48 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 49--Order in council)
Liberal
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
This was a proposal put forward as a result of the Bloc's suggestion, and which we thought was a good idea.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
The two sections shall not come into effect until three years after the act comes into force.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Yes, Mr. Chair. And with respect, we've talked about this for quite a period of time. I think we're ready for the vote, unless there are any specific questions.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Don Bell
Is there any further discussion?
Are you ready for the vote on amendment G-7?
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chairman, before you call the vote, I notice that the department would like to have a comment.
