Evidence of meeting #74 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 amendments.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
As far as I can tell, there are three consecutive proposed amendments that relate to the same issue around transparency. I support the measures. I am conscious of the fact that there is proprietary information that might be compromised here, which the commercial participants for good reasons don't want to disclose. Is there a way that we can accomplish the attempt to achieve greater transparency while carving out commercially sensitive proprietary information of the commercial parties?
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I don't have specific language prepared. I'm essentially asking for a subamendment here.
3:50 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
Yes, I think we could by adding language in the proposed amendments with respect to.... There are a couple of things. In the first amendment you would only want to make information available if the joint venture goes ahead. That's first and foremost. If it's withdrawn, then that information won't be made public. It may be considered, but it won't go forward. At the end of the amendment, it would be highly desirable that we include that, so it reads “a public summary of the conclusions of the report that does not include any confidential information”.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I'm sensitive to the fact that we don't have this in both official languages.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
If you make an amendment in English, the translation will—
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I was going to ask whether we could perhaps set this aside. Maybe, if we could have a quick recess at some point in time, we could come up with proposed language to do this. I don't have it sitting in front of me right now. I don't expect it would take a long time, but in the interest of continuing, we could revisit this once we have some language put together.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
All right. We'll postpone amendment CPC-5.
(Amendment allowed to stand)
l will go to amendment CPC-6.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Madam Chair, this amendment proposes, simply in the same vein, to make public a decision in that regard. If there are concerns from the members opposite regarding this amendment, perhaps we could also set it aside, so that during our votes, which are coming up, we can figure out the wording that would work.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Why don't we just postpone clause 14 and come back to it when our great committee members find the right words.
(Clause 14 allowed to stand)
There are no amendments to clauses 15 to 18.
(Clauses 15 to clause 18 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 19)
Mr. Aubin, would you like to speak to your amendment, please?
3:55 p.m.
NDP
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you.
My argument in favour is very simple.
Bill C-49 contains a proposal that is not really a proposal, in my opinion. It is actually a solution designed to save time. What for? We could spend a lot of time discussing that.
As for the air passenger bill of rights, Canada does not have to reinvent the wheel because bills of rights of that kind already exist. Many witnesses spoke very positively about the European bill of rights, for example.
The purpose of most of the proposals in this amendment is to include in the bill the main rights that passengers could rely on in case of a problem. The NDP is not actually insensitive to the Liberal approach, under which all that work would be done by regulation, because, when conditions change, it is easier to amend a regulation than an act. We are also sensitive to certain of the details, like the amount of fines.
However, in terms of rights, it seems to me that the problems have been known for a long time, and it is possible to enact the equivalent of the proposals in the European bill of rights, for example. That is actually what the text of the amendment proposes. It is a concrete proposal that I invite my colleagues to consider and take a position on.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you, Mr. Aubin.
We'll go to the department, and then we'll go to Mr. Iacono.
3:55 p.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Transport
The bill states that the specifics of the compensation measures or any other measures would be developed in regulation. The reason we believe this is most appropriate is that it allows for proper consultation on the various elements that are listed in the legislation. By including them in the bill, we will not have time to consult with Canadians about what they believe are the important features that should be in there for compensation or for duty of care of the passenger.
If we then have to make changes at some point because the regime is altered, it's also much faster to make the changes through the regulatory system than having to change a bill or having to come back just to change the section of the bill for those amendments.
For those reasons, as is normal when we have something very detailed like this, it's more appropriate to do it through the regulatory process. I think that, as Minister Garneau committed to when he was here, we have every intention to get on with this and to have this regime in place in 2018.
4 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
I understand. We are dealing with a fundamental difference in point of view.
The great majority of the witnesses we have heard, with the exception of the representatives from one or two major airlines, were of the opinion that we do not have to reinvent the wheel because the bill of rights already exists.
Are we going to use this whole consultation process to end up with something that already exists and on which there seems to be consensus, in order to respond to the pressure from a few airlines? The question has to be asked. It seems to me that we could actually take a position on the issue and provide Canadians, right from the moment that this bill receives royal assent, not a consultation, but a real passenger bill of rights. A number of parties have promised Canadians that on a number of occasions, including during the election campaign.
I feel that the time has come to adopt an air passenger bill of rights.