Evidence of meeting #61 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Somewhat, yes.
We were in the middle of discussing committee business, and Mrs. Block had clearly asked a question about making a request to the minister and government. Seeing the people on the other side of the table go back and forth about whether they would give an answer, you decided to suspend for a quick break. We never got an answer to the question, and now here we are talking about an altogether different topic.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
We're supposed to be dealing with the drafting instructions. It went in a different direction. When I went to the next speaker on the list, you asked a question but I had a speakers list. I went back to my speakers list, which had Mr. Iacono as next. He is speaking to what he wanted to speak about, which is what we were supposed to talk about, which is the drafting instructions for the aviation report.
Mr. Iacono, you have the floor.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Madam Chair, Mr. Badawey brought it up and you asked our opinion.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
That's not a point of order, Mr. Berthold.
Mr. Iacono has the floor. He's speaking to the issue that's before us.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
In going back to the second subject, which is training. We heard from a variety of witnesses that training, whether for pilots, inspectors, or specialized workers in the aerospace industry, is the key to ensuring a safe and secure air transportation service. We should highlight the different recommendations we heard on the importance of training.
As to inspections and SMS, we also heard a great deal of comments about SMS and how it actually helped air safety become safer and safer over the years. The majority of the witnesses agreed that all operators should have a safety management system. There were concerns expressed about the inspections, the quality and types of inspections, the duration in-between inspections, the data collected during the inspections, and also the number of inspectors who are now allocated to doing these inspections.
Although Transport Canada assured us that they were doing proper regulation, oversight and inspections, there seemed to be some questions on this. This should also be reflected in the report, that is, how often the inspections are being done and the number of personnel available to conduct these inspections.
When it came to security in airports, everything we heard during that meeting was really reassuring. All the witnesses had the same opinion, that the system in place is working properly—I'm grateful to say that, because if some incidents occurred a couple of weeks ago, it's because the system in place presently is functioning—and that all agencies involved are working well together. That, too, is important to highlight, in making make our airports secure. Rest assured that it's never enough, because we always have to be ahead of our game when it comes to airport security.
We also heard about the financing of CATSA. That was another criterion.
We look forward to the other comments of the Montreal police.
I think this can give the analysts a good sense of the direction we would like to see the report be drafted in.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much.
Is there any further discussion on the drafting instructions?
Monsieur Aubin, this was your study.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I almost had a point of order, but now that it's my turn, I'm going to ask you my question.
When we instruct the analysts, are we allowed to express a certain direction or an opinion?
I tend to agree that the report should be divided into the various subjects we examined, but I think we should leave it to the analysts to come up with the first draft. Conclusions shouldn't factor into our drafting instructions.
According to my colleague, all the witnesses agreed that a safety management system was great, but I have some reservations about that. I don't want to get into a debate about it now; I imagine that will happen when we discuss the report. I think we need to exercise some restraint when we instruct the analysts.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
On a point of order, Madam Chair, we should be in camera right now.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
I was just going to say that that is an aspect of our procedure here, in this committee, I can't quite get a handle on, but I really want to understand. To my mind, when we give the analysts drafting instructions, we shouldn't tell them to go in a certain direction. Instead, we should tell them what form we want the report to take and which subjects we want it to cover, in light of all the input we gathered.
It seems to me that to instruct the analysts on our findings even before the report has been drafted is to walk a rather fine line, at the very least. What makes our analysts so valuable is precisely the fact that they are completely non-partisan. They cannot have any political affiliation whatsoever. They must be able to be as objective as possible in looking at all of the comments of the witnesses, who appear before the committee to voice their support or opposition and sometimes qualify their positions. It is the analysts' job to produce as accurate a report as possible of what they took away from the committee's discussions.
It is the committee's job to bring out the various arguments. I think, then, that the least we can do is exercise some restraint in our drafting instructions to the analysts.
I'd like to know what you consider acceptable, Madam Chair, in terms of the committee's recommendations to the analysts on the drafting of the report. I expected that we would just provide instructions on the form of the report, not on its substance. I thought we would debate the substance once we received the draft report.
Since we seem to be all over the place, I'm going to go ahead and switch gears, because we don't have any real direction here. I would very much like to bring the discussion back to my suggestion that we ask the government to split the mammoth bill that is Bill C-49, so we can focus our efforts on the measures affecting farmers.
Once again, Madam Chair, I would point out that we have two or three issues on the table at the same time. This is all very confusing.
12:45 p.m.
A voice
You have to keep talking; otherwise, we are moving in camera.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Mr. Aubin has been so quiet today that I just feel I have to give him his extra time, but I think Mr. Iacono wants the floor to clarify where he was going.
Mr. Aubin, please, it's your time.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
I'm being presumptuous, here, but I think that, rather than clarify where he is going, Mr. Iacono really wants to suggest that we move in camera. We were actually supposed to meet in camera, but my Liberal colleagues were the ones who suggested that we meet in public. For the sake of consistency, then, let's continue the meeting in public.
What we are in the midst of discussing isn't a crime of lese majesty, and we aren't going to get all worked up in public in an effort to bring some clarity to our work. I would remind you that I would like an answer to my question.
Considering that all our discussions since the meeting began have been in public, the people following our proceedings might be puzzled—to put it politely—as to why the committee would suddenly move in camera at the precise moment when our questions were finally going to be answered. It would be as though the television channel were suddenly cut. We've all experienced how frustrating it is to be watching a playoff game when the score is tied and suddenly the cable goes out during the third period. That's exactly what this would be like. I can't see how we could justify the decision to move in camera when the entire meeting thus far has taken place in public.
It's not that embarrassing of a discussion. The bills are public, and the questions we are asking are quite clear. They have to do with procedure. There is another equally, if not more, important question we need to answer, because it affects the day-to-day work of farmers all over the country, who are stuck in, what I would call, a no man's land; that question stems from the fact that Bill C-49 is a massive bill that came to us late.
We agree that one of the Minister of Transport's characteristics seems to be his studious nature and his lengthy examination of bills before bringing them forward. That approach probably has some merit. However, once the bill is introduced, he has to allow enough time for the work to be done properly given the issues in question.
Bill C-49 is so massive that the best thing would be to split it. I realize that our committee doesn't have the authority to divide a bill, but we can, at the very least, make a recommendation. I would think that the Minister of Transport would pay more attention to a unanimous recommendation than a majority one. We would then be in a position to act in the best interests of everyone involved, procedurally speaking.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank my colleague for his comments. I just want to signal that drafting instructions have always been done in camera—
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Then before you started, if you were referring to specific drafting instructions, we should have gone in camera.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Yes, but I have no objection to just saying a few more words.
12:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Just to clarify, in no way was I trying to give any recommendations to the analysts.
I did say that we heard from a variety of witnesses. I did say that we also heard a great deal of comments on certain topics. On many occasions, I did say that it was based on what we were told.
Not once did I attempt to give recommendations or a sense of direction that the analysts should be following.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I too want to thank Mr. Aubin. I think he started the process, with his original comments, of actually giving drafting advice to the analysts. I somewhat agree that, of course, when we do go into that discussion—first off, here I agree with Mr. Iacono—it should be done in closed session.
I think Mr. Aubin was starting to go down that road and to actually give the analysts some direction and advice with respect to doing their work, and coming back with some of those recommendations based on what we heard from the testimony of our witnesses. To some extent, I would agree.
Madam Chair, if we are going to go into the particulars of the drafting advice for the analysts, may I suggest a motion that it would be appropriate to go into a closed session?