Debates of June 5th, 1998

Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation And Safety Board Act

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, for the President of the Queen's Privy Council and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

moved that Bill S-2, an act to amend the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill S-2, which amends the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act and makes consequential amendments to another Act.

In 1989 parliament passed the CTAISB act and the act was proclaimed in March 1990. Following a review that was required by the statute and on the basis of the operating experience of the Transport Safety Board, the TSB, over the past eight years some legislative changes have been proposed to fine tune the TSB's already good legislation.

Many of the proposed changes are relatively minor, or are administrative in nature. It is also proposed to improve the Board's operating practices and its independence.

Thanks to the administrative changes proposed, a number of the definitions used in the act will be improved, application of the act as it applies to pipeline accidents and incidents will be clarified, and it will be made clearer that departments may continue to perform their duties while the Board is investigating an accident.

As well, the TSB will be more readily able to respond to provincial requests to carry out investigations for them, on a cost recovery basis.

There are several proposed changes to put increased emphasis on the identification of safety deficiencies through TSB investigations.

In order to encourage people to provide the TSB with information on safety, it is proposed that information provided to investigators, by witnesses for instance, be better protected. Civil proceedings may be taken against persons refusing to provide information to TSB investigators.

A proposal will provide protection to representations made to the board on its confidential draft reports by persons with a direct interest who are asked to review them. Such protection would be similar to that provided to witness statements.

The bill contains a number of provisions as well concerning on board recorders, equipment known as black boxes, which can be very useful in a complex investigation. The on board recordings, which are already protected, will include the video recordings of crew activities.

However, sounds heard in on board recordings that are not voice recordings, such as motor noise, will no longer be protected.

Currently, on board recordings cannot be used in criminal or disciplinary proceedings. One provision will apply the same privilege to the recordings to limit their use in civil proceedings.

The bill was considered in detail by the Senate and three amendments were made. The first was to provide assurance that there would be a minimum number of full time board members. The second was to accommodate the orderly administration of judicial and other proceedings started before these amendments become law. We believe that both of those amendments improve the bill.

A third amendment was made to widen the meaning of on-board recordings. That amendment leads to some serious problems for the Department of Transport in its safety oversight role and we requested that it be defeated. It has the unintended effect of denying the employer and the regulator access to the information necessary to ensuring the quality and safety of some elements of air traffic service. Further, it makes it difficult to take remedial measures when procedures require amendments. I point out that the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association does not object to the removal of this amendment.

Bill S-2 would help improve Canada's already exceptional reputation in transport accident investigation. I ask all members of the House to give the bill speedy passage.

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill S-2, an act to amend the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act and to make consequential amendments to another act, the Canadian Labour Code.

This bill is a reprint of Bill C-86 which was introduced during the last parliament on March 6, 1997. It passed first reading, but it was never considered by the transportation committee of the House of Commons.

Before I speak to the bill I would like to say a few words about the process that is being followed.

I am on the transportation committee and this is the first time I have heard about this bill. Would it not make sense for the transportation committee of the House to see the bill before it is introduced for debate in the House of Commons? This is one good reason for the House not to accept bills originating in the Senate.

The transportation committee of the House of Commons is the scrutineer of all legislation pertaining to transportation matters in this country, not the Senate. At no time should the transportation committee be left out of the process.

We on this side of the House support this bill in principle, but we need an opportunity to clarify some technicalities in the bill, hopefully at the committee level. We agree that there is a need to modernize Canada's transportation safety investigation regulations to align them with the recommendations made in a 1994 review commission report on the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act and the 1992 Moshansky commission report on the Dryden air accident.

One of the goals of the review was to uncover cost efficiencies as well as increase the flexibility of the board's operations. Included in its recommendations allowing for part time board members was that the ratio of the full and part time members would be left up to the governor in council. That makes a lot of sense. For example, should there be a large serious accident or even a series of serious accidents it may seem necessary to the governor in council to appoint five full time members. At other times a full time board would not be necessary.

Is it necessary to have three full time members all the time? Would it not make sense to leave it up to the government of the day to hire on need?

The good news is that this amendment, unusual as it may be, would not result in new programs and new expenditures. This is indeed unusual in most government bills.

The amendments to repeal the Transportation Safety Board's mandate to initiate and conduct special studies and special investigations on matters pertaining to safety in transportation puzzles me. This amendment appears to take away from the Transportation Safety Board the authority to be independent and to initiate investigations on its own.

This amendment would make the Transportation Safety Board very reliant on directions from government on what it can and cannot investigate.

Bill S-2 will also place a greater emphasis on the identification of safety deficiencies in the transportation sector. It will prohibit other federal departments, except the Department of National Defence, from investigating a transportation occurrence for the purpose of making findings as to its causes and contributing factors. An investigation for any other purpose is sanctioned.

Bill S-2 will strengthen the distinction between safety investigations and court disciplinary proceedings. It will also provide for greater protection of information provided to the Transportation Safety Board. It will prohibit the use of on-board recordings in legal proceedings and will generally relieve investigators from the obligation to appear as witnesses in any such proceedings.

The Reform Party supports the bill. It is critical to the process that the bill originated in the Senate and should pass through the transport committee of the House of Commons.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill S-2. For the benefit of those watching, this bill was originally introduced by the government on March 6, 1997 as Bill C-86 but died on the order paper when the last federal election was called on April 26, 1997.

I would first off like to say that our party, the Bloc Quebecois, will support the bill. I give the government the option of proceeding to second and third reading this morning to permit the bill to be passed quickly before the summer recess.

Even though elements of the bill are of interest to our party, there is a procedure not often used in the House, which is sometimes a problem, but which is permitted, namely, the introduction of bills directly in the Senate. This is why this bill is known as Bill S-2. So, exceptionally, the government decided, with the co-operation of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, to introduce this bill in the Senate first, rather than in the House first.

Like most Quebeckers, we in the Bloc Quebecois are totally opposed to the institution that is the Senate. We deplore the fact that, showing a degree of contempt for democracy, the government chose to introduce the bill before unelected parliamentarians. Bear in mind that this archaic institution from another era is made up of 104 individuals appointed by the government of the day, who are currently almost equally divided into two groups: a Liberal majority and a Conservative official opposition.

To us, as a party, it is absolutely indecent for such a bill to be initiated by unelected senators. The government should have followed the usual procedure and introduced the bill here, in the House of Commons, the house of the people, where we represent democracy as it was clearly expressed in the June 2, 1997 general election. Whether we get along or not, or have differences of opinion about Canada's or Quebec's place on the international scene, we are all democratically elected members of parliament.

There is no ambiguity about the political colour of the 44 members of the Bloc Quebecois: we are sovereignists. We have said so before, during and every day we have a chance to do so in this House since the election. We consider ourselves democrats, to the same extent as our colleagues from the four other parties represented in the House. This concludes the aside I wanted to make regarding the unusual procedure used.

I hope the government will not make it a habit. We work hard in this place. We have a number of bills to examine. Unfortunately, it is rumoured that we will adjourn soon, earlier than scheduled on the parliamentary calendar, because our legislative agenda is so light. I see the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration laughing across the way. But it is true, there is not much to work on. We are prepared to work hard, night and day and on weekends if necessary, but we need a legislative agenda to work on. I believe members of this House have shown that they can be serious and work hard. There is no need to have bills introduced directly in the Senate.

I go back to the fact that the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act was passed in 1989 and proclaimed in 1990. That legislation provided for a review mechanism. The board that conducted the review tabled its report in 1994, and the bill before us reflects these recommendations, those of the Moshansky commission of inquiry, and also takes into account various consultations.

I want to deal with three specific issues: the board's independence, the role given to the provinces in this bill, and the members of the board.

First, the bill does strengthen the board's independence, and our party is very pleased with that. The board will deal at arms' length with the minister. Its independence is also encouraged by promoting non coercive methods to gain the co-operation of witnesses and to better protect the confidential nature of the information provided by witnesses, and by providing greater protection in legal proceedings, following statements made by witnesses.

The object of the board is to advance transportation safety by conducting independent investigations, identifying safety deficiencies, making recommendations and reporting publicly on investigations. These responsibilities are stated in clause 7 of Bill S-2. The idea is not necessarily to find guilty parties. Rather, it is to find out what happened, why and what conditions led to the accident.

The board must play an inquisitive but not necessarily accusatory role to find out what happened. It must find out the facts to understand the incident and, of course, to write reports, which is the important element in clause 7. This will help to define prevention measures, so that such incidents do not recur. The issue is transportation safety, it is about saving human lives.

When we use a means of transportation in Canada or in Quebec, we expect the company to be serious, reasonable and professional. Since we naturally trust it, it could be tempted to try to stretch increasingly limited financial resources a little further by trying to keep costs down—by cutting a few corners, as my mother would say, not bothering with every little detail—to the detriment of safety.

The government therefore has the important legislative and regulatory role of ensuring that Canadians and Quebeckers have an efficient, effective and, above all, safe transportation system.

No matter how many regulations are in place, accidents are still going to happen. But they must be well documented; we must look into them, make reports and recommendations so that, when these accidents occur, we really know what went wrong. And I hope that that will not be the end of it, that these recommendations will not gather dust on library shelves and never be consulted again. It has to have a certain documentary value if prevention is to be served.

The board's purpose is not to cast blame. Right now, the board can press charges against individuals refusing to testify. The issue is one of being compelled to testify. In future, it will be possible to make an application to the Superior Court or the Federal Court in order to require an individual to disclose information or be found in contempt. Our party is pleased with this procedure. It is faster, less costly and more effective.

We in the Bloc Quebecois are not narrow-minded. We are not in the opposition for the sole purpose of criticizing and complaining. When the government gets something right, we say so. That is a sign of political maturity.

However, when it is wrong, I hope we have to right to sat so, and I hope the government does not think it is perfect. For instance, in clause 19, paragraph 15.1, the government is proposing a faster, less expensive and more efficient process, that we support, because we think it is a good thing.

On the independence issue, the bill confirms the exclusive jurisdiction of the board over investigating the causes of a transportation occurrence. That is stipulated in clause 14.4. The wording is also changed to show that the board is not an administrative or quasi-judicial tribunal.

I do not remember the exact wording and I do not have the time to start looking for it in the bill, but we wanted to decriminalize the whole process as it concerns the witnesses. If memory serves, we no longer talk about briefs and witnesses, but about people giving testimony.

That might sound like a technicality, but still it decriminalizes the whole process and it indicates that the main purpose of the board is to investigate the facts and to come up with recommendations to once again improve safety.

With this bill, the government wanted to eliminate the quasi-judicial aspect of the proceedings of the board. We support this move.

My second remark concerns the role of the provinces. Since we are still in a heavily centralized federal system, it is unfortunate that the Canadian pact should provide for a strong central government and provinces that are nearly powerless. This is one problem. And, partly because of that, Quebec looks forward to the day when it has full power and does not have to come begging to the federal government all the time.

This is the system we have to live with for the time being, and our party being a democratic party has said that it would keep looking for ways to improve the Canadian federal system from within.

The provinces will now be allowed to ask the board to investigate accidents in transportation areas that are under their own jurisdiction. Paragraphe 15.1 provides that provinces can use the board.

I think that this provision could be interesting under the new approach being used with railways in Canada and especially in Quebec, where we have a number of railway lines. The process is underway. This procedure could be used in the case of so-called short line railroads. The board will be empowered to investigate accidents in transportation areas under provincial jurisdiction. The fact is that short line railroads are entirely under provincial jurisdiction when they are not involved in interprovincial operations.

Of course, the costs of the investigation must then be recovered from the provinces. Our party does hope the board will be reasonable in assessing the costs to the provinces. I hope it will not try to pass on to them the cost of the three inch thick carpeting which I am sure covers the floor in the board's offices. If, however, the costs incurred during the course of an investigation on a means of transportation under provincial jurisdiction are reasonable, I do not foresee any problem.

This bill encourages co-operation between the board's investigators and provincial coroners as opposed to peace officers.

My third and last point, before I conclude, deals with board members. The bill provides for the appointment of part time members and a full board of no more than five members. We acknowledge that this is bound to make the board more cost efficient.

However, this is another case of bouquets and brickbats. We must raise an issue that the government really fails to understand or refuses to accept. When the Liberals were in the opposition, under the Conservatives, they took issue with the many partisan appointments made by Prime Minister Mulroney, as can be seen in Hansard for the years 1984 to 1993, at which point the Liberals came to power. When they formed the opposition, the Liberals kept on lambasting Prime Minister Mulroney and his Tory government for their partisan appointments.

In 1993, the Liberals were voted in, but the practice was maintained. Today, it is alive and well. Our party would have hoped that with Bill S-2 the government would have shown an openness and transparency it has not shown since 1993. We would have liked to see an open appointment process under which board's members would be chosen for their skills and expertise, and not for being a member of the Liberal Party of Canada or a candidate in a general election.

The Bloc Quebecois is well aware of how the government rewarded the Liberal candidates who ran against us unsuccessfully in the Quebec City area. I remember a lady by the name of Margo Brousseau, who ran in 1993 for the Liberal Party in Louis-Hébert. Shortly after her defeat to my former colleague, Philippe Paré, Mrs. Brousseau was appointed to the board of directors of the port of Quebec City.

We know also that in the last election Jacques Portelance, a councillor in the municipality of Charlesbourg, was defeated by my colleague from Charlesbourg. A few months ago, he was appointed to the board of directors of the port of Quebec City. I have nothing against Mr. Portelance. And my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau is telling me that Stéphane Hébert was also a Liberal candidate who was rewarded by the government.

The government should have used this bill to say “Enough is enough”, as Reform members like to say. It should have taken the opportunity to provide for transparency in the appointment process. But no, the partisan appointment process lives on.

Everyone will find some benefit in my last comment on the issue. The Liberals are continuing what the Conservatives were doing and now, with the Conservatives in opposition, the few Conservative members we see in this House, because they are often missing in action, starting with their former leader—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

These few Conservative members wax indignant, criticizing the government's partisan appointments, even though they did the exact same thing during their eight or nine years in office.

This confirms what we in the Bloc said to Quebeckers in the last election campaign in 1993: “The Liberals and the Conservatives are exactly the same, except that they throw the ball at each other”. When one party is in office, the other complains and vice versa.

We in the Bloc Quebecois are of one mind in this regard: Since we field candidates only in Quebec, we know that we were elected to represent Quebec's interests. What we ask for is a transparent process. We have no one to reward for contributing to our election fund. We want the government to appoint the most able people, regardless of gender, origin or academic background.

In conclusion, this bill makes various small administrative changes resulting from the experiences of the last few years. We think it is normal to make such administrative changes and, as I mentioned earlier, we believe the board plays an important and essential role.

It is a good thing that there will be more emphasis on the identification of safety violations. It is a good thing that the board will use collaboration and rely on information provided in all frankness and confidence to improve its investigative method.

We are happy that, through this bill, the board will confirm that it is determined to identify circumstances surrounding the loss of lives in order to promote security, and not to determine responsibility.

I think it is a clarification that needs to be made. The issue is not to know who is responsible, but to try to understand what happened, especially if lives were lost, and to make sure that it does not happen again.

A country's transportation system depends essentially on the degree of confidence. People will prefer one means of transportation over another if they are confident, if they think safety rules are observed and if they believe they are in an environment that is safe and sound for themselves and their families.

It is clear that problems will arise if people in Quebec and in Canada lose confidence in one means of transportation or another. We have an example of that right now. Air traffic controllers are presently negotiating with Nav Canada. I do not want to sound alarmist, but I hope that the safety of air passengers is not threatened by these negotiations. We know there are pressure tactics, we know there are obstacles.

Nav Canada—and this was confirmed by the Auditor General of Canada, Mr. Desautels—was literally given the air traffic control system in Canada. I think it would be in Nav Canada's best interest to sit down at the bargaining table with its employees, the air traffic controllers, and to find a way to settle this collective agreement. It is crucial to the safety of Canada's air transport system as well as to the confidence we have in this system.

I repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech: We support Bill S-2 and our party will co-operate with the government should it decide to proceed with second and third reading of this bill this morning so it can be passed before the summer recess.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, back in 1989 the Conservative government originally introduced the safety board act and we opposed it. It was fundamentally flawed then and it is fundamentally flawed now.

The bill before us is to amend the act but does nothing to address the deficiencies in the Transportation Safety Board. The main idea underlying this act is supportable in principle. In 1989 this act brought a number of federal bodies responsible for investigating transportation safety under the same roof.

If the Conservative government had wanted to, it could have streamlined these operations, increased efficiency and saved money for the taxpayers without sacrificing public. Instead this act created a seriously deficient Transportation Safety Board, a board that was and still is unable to fulfil its mandate to safeguard the lives of Canadians.

Last year there were 2,159 train, marine, air and pipeline accidents reported in Canada. This is just the number of reported accidents and does not include any that went unreported. These accidents resulted in 127 deaths. Yet the safety board's nationwide investigative staff only consists of 135 people. These 135 people, field investigators, supervisors, laboratory personnel, forensic investigators have to cover all the accidents that occur in Canada. No wonder the safety board is plagued with a backlog.

In its annual report the board states its intention to reduce the amount of time it spends on each case so that it can reduce its backlog. Think about that. They are going to spend less time on each case so they can cut down the backlog. An investigation into an accident is not something that can be rushed. It is a matter of public safety and warrants a complete and thorough investigation, not a rush job.

The government has left the Transportation Safety Board understaffed and underfunded so much that the dedicated public servants who work there have little choice but to cope as they are doing. It should not be this way. This organization is supposed to advance transportation safety in Canada. It is what Canadians rely on to protect them and their environment from accidents on the rails and waterways and in the the skies and the pipelines of this country.

Canadians rely on the Transportation Safety Board but its resources are spread too thin. It was a good idea to streamline safety investigations under one roof, but for it to work we have to give the board the resources it needs to fulfil such a broad mandate. By nickeling and diming the Transportation Safety Board the government is putting the health and safety of Canadians at risk.

This is not something we can afford to cut corners on, but that is just what is happening. Apparently the government would rather save money than lives.

Fortunately the original act included a clause requiring a review of the Transportation Safety Board. This review was completed in 1994. By then we had a new government. The Liberals had replaced the Conservatives.

The Liberals have had a chance to fix the problems with the Transportation Safety Board to make a meaningful investment in transportation safety but they have chosen not to. They are just as indifferent to the health and safety of Canadians as their Conservative predecessors.

Instead the Liberals have given us the bill before us today, Bill S-2. Not only does this bill not deal with the deficiencies of the Transportation Safety Board, it actually makes them worse.

At present the board consists of four members. One of the amendments that the Liberals are proposing would allow them to turn some of these appointments from full time into part time positions. We are led to believe that this is a good thing because they will be able to spread themselves a lot further. I am sceptical. I am concerned that the board will have even fewer working hours to deal with the many important issues it is mandated to investigate. This is a big step in the wrong direction.

There are a few good amendments in this bill, but on the whole it makes a bad act even worse. One of the good amendments which I will touch on briefly is the extension of the privacy protections for those who give information to board investigators.

As an experienced labour activist I know the kind of pressure and intimidation employers are capable of using against workers. If employees have information that is of use to the safety board but may be damaging to their employer, they must be free to give this information.

However, they might not co-operate with investigators if they are afraid for their jobs and families. Thus it is vitally important that testimony given to the safety investigators be held in the strictest of confidence. This is necessary so that witnesses can be candid with investigators without fear of retribution.

The extension of confidentiality in the investigative process is a good amendment. It gives workers the freedom to co-operate with safety board investigators and protects them. It is surprising to see such an amendment in a Senate bill. That place is hardly an institution known for protecting workers. It has historically played the role of advocate for the privileged few. Not that the privileged few have ever needed this protection with the Liberal and the Conservatives in power.

Even John A. Macdonald acknowledged the other house's role as a defender of the privileged when he said a larger qualification should be necessary for membership of the upper house in order to represent the principle of property. The rights of the minority must be protected and the rich are always fewer in number than the poor.

This amendment protecting workers is quite out of character for that other house. In the context of the rest of the bill this one amendment is an anomaly. The amendments to this bill that I most strongly object to are the ones that reduce the independence and public accountability of the board. These are much more in character for that unelected and unaccountable institution.

Like the auditor general, this transportation safety board is expected to be independent of political and outside influences. That is the whole point. It is supposed to provide an independent neutral perspective on safety issues in Canada. Everyone acknowledges this. Yet the safety board act includes a ridiculous provision allowing ministers and other interested parties to review draft copies of the board's annual report and submit comments on it.

This is a glaring contradiction. What this does is allow parties with vested interests in the board's reports to attempt to influence these reports to their advantage. Even if the board members try their best to be neutral they will be undoubtedly influenced to some degree by these outside submissions. This is especially true in the case of submissions by ministers since the board members are appointed by the government. Thus the safety board is not independent like it should be. It is subject to undue political influence.

Comprising the board's independence and neutrality in this way is scandalous. It risks the health and safety of Canadians for the sake of politics. The safety board must be free of outside influences so it can focus exclusively on public safety.

Not only does this bill before us today not resolve the board's independence problem, it makes the problem's magnitude much worse. At least now when private interests comment to the board about the draft reports these comments are not secret. At least the public has a chance to scrutinize these comments and see how the board is being influenced.

The bill would make these submissions secret. Why is this? Why do the Liberals in the Senate not want the public to know what people are saying to the transportation safety board? It looks like they do not want Canadians to know what is going on at the board. They are covering it with a shroud of secrecy. It is bad enough that the current act allows private interests to influence the safety board. Now the Liberals are trying to hide this from the Canadian people. It is deceptive. It is patronizing. It is anti-democratic. It shows how out of touch the Liberals are with ordinary Canadians.

I am forced to wonder what the Liberals are trying to hide. If these private submissions they are trying to hide were not unduly influencing the safety board there would be no reason to hide them. By placing this shroud over the safety board they are shattering the illusion of independence.

Canadians expect the transportation safety board to be looking out for them so that when they travel for business or for pleasure they can feel safe. That is why they need a safety board that is independent, neutral and adequately funded. It must be adequately funded so it has the resources to properly carry out its mandate. It must be independent so it can focus on public safety without undue political or private influences diverting it from its purpose. To deny the board these essential necessities does a great disservice to Canadians.

As I indicated, there are beneficial aspects of the bill. We will be in a corner today weighing the benefits being enacted before the summer or delaying the bill with the hope of trying to convince the Liberals of the changes in the fall. It is apparent they have a majority and I am not convinced that delaying the bill will result in any changes but just a stalling of the inevitable.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my views on Bill S-2.

We have been provided with a book on this bill which we have reviewed as best we could. We have contacted as many people as we could, including officials of the transportation safety board to find out their views on it. As far as we could tell there seemed to be consensus for the passing of this bill.

However, the government wants to move it through the system and avoid the transport committee. It will require unanimous consent on that. I am going to withhold my consent on that because this is the second major transportation bill to go through the government. As members of the transportation committee we have been denied access to witnesses.

In the case of Bill C-9, a much more profound bill with more impact, I moved a motion to have witnesses heard but I was overruled by the committee so we never heard witnesses opposed to Bill C-9. There is the same effort with Bill S-2 to avoid allowing witnesses to make presentations. We are only allowed to hear the people in support of the bill while we are not allowed to hear the people opposed to it.

When Bill C-9 went to Senate after we passed it in the House, the senators had witnesses in their senate committee, and many people opposed it. We were denied access to those presentations. I feel very strongly that we were sent here to serve the people. We were put on the transport committee to help make decisions and proper amendments. If we are not allowed to hear both sides of the story but are only allowed to hear the government side, we are not equipped or able to make intelligent decisions. I will be opposing unanimous consent on this.

I am really sorry with Bill C-9 that I did not push harder for witnesses to be heard. I did make the motion and I was overruled but I feel now that I should have done more. I am not going to make that mistake again. I want to hear both sides of the story, not just one.

In that effort we contacted officials of the transportation safety board. They are supportive of this bill. We asked them several months ago and then asked them again yesterday. They feel there are some positive changes here which they want to see go ahead. However, we have not heard the other side of the story from the people affected, and a lot of people will be affected by this bill.

Another reason to send it to committee and to call witnesses is that the government strangely enough moved an amendment in the bill that was passed but it now wants to withdraw that amendment. I do not have a satisfactory explanation of what that was all about. Why did the government move the amendment in the first place? Who was affected by it? I think air traffic controllers, perhaps pilots and a lot of people would be affected by that amendment. Now the government wants the amendment withdrawn with no explanation, no hearings and no witnesses. That is another reason to make this bill go to committee and to hear all sides of the story.

If it is a good bill it will pass committee. I pledge my total support to see that it goes through as quickly as possible but I do want it to go to committee. If we allow this bill to go through without first going through committee and hearing witnesses, it will be the second transport bill this happens to. It will be the same as Bill C-9 where we were not allowed to hear from witnesses.

Bill C-9 was a much more profound bill with more impact. A lot of people were against it and we were not allowed to hear from any of them. The only people we heard from are those we reached out to and contacted ourselves. We did not have an open committee or testimony from people who were affected. That same thing will happen with Bill S-2 if we allow it go through via the speedy process which is going through the House without going to committee. We will be voting against unanimous approval to expedite this bill through the system.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried on division. The bill is therefore referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-3, an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member in whose name the motions on the notice paper stand is not here to move them. Therefore I will proceed to put the question on the report stage of this bill.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the opportunity to speak on Bill S-3.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry, there is nothing to speak on at the moment. We are on report stage. There are amendments proposed that cannot be put to the House because no one is here to move them. I intend to put the question on concurrence at report stage, which is not a debatable motion.

[John Manley, Liberal, for the Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

moved that the bill be concurred in.