[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, May 7, 1996
.0911 
[English]
The Chairman: Okay, I see a quorum.
Just before we get to the business of clause-by-clause on Bill C-20, I should note for the information of members that on Thursday we have the minister in at 9 a.m. He has cabinet at 10 a.m., so we will only have an hour with him. It would therefore be useful to have everyone here right at 9 o'clock.
After that, we're going to have officials here to continue with the estimates discussions, and I'd also like to reserve half an hour for future business of the committee at that time. I have a number of items that members have brought to me, and I think we can clean them up fairly quickly.
Before we begin, Mr. Gouk wanted just to make a comment.
Mr. Gouk (Kootenay West - Revelstoke): Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have talked to a number of members about the potential of a rather substantive amendment that I was proposing to put in. I'm not putting it in, but I would like the committee's indulgence for just one minute to explain why I think we should have at least considered this, as I myself did.
Right now, a lot of people think a number of the bargaining agents, not the least of which is the one for air traffic controllers, are designated as an essential service. They're not, but for all intents and purposes they're effectively placed in a position in which they're not able to effectively strike. With the implementation of this legislation and the transfer to NAV CANADA, all of those bargaining agents will be in a position to strike. There is indication from some of those associations that because they have been arbitrarily held without the ability to negotiate a contract in the norms of collective bargaining, they are looking for a significant raise, and there could be some labour unrest.
If we thought shutting down the Port of Vancouver or the national rail system was catastrophic to our economy, it is nothing. It would pale beside a national air strike. Because of that, I looked at the idea of possibly putting in an amendment that would include putting, right in the bill, final offer selection arbitration as a final dispute mechanism if all other collective bargaining efforts on the part of the employer and the bargaining agent fail.
I went out and consulted with user groups, bargaining agents and other affected people right across the country, and I did find significant support for that position. But I also got enough input from people to convince me that it may be premature to put something like that in because not enough consultation had taken place and it may in fact make the situation and the attitude between the players in this thing worse rather than better. It is, however, something I think this committee should be aware of.
It almost sneaked by me. The only reason I caught it is because of this level of designation. It is mentioned in the bill, and that is the thing that tweaked it to me. Right now, in a number of groups including air traffic control, 100% of the employees are designated in the event of a strike. They can go on strike, but they still have to report to work and do their normal duties, which effectively prevents a strike. That ceases upon transfer to NAV CANADA.
So it is something you should be aware of. We do have the potential, for the first time in over twenty years, for a national air strike that would shut down the national air transportation system of this country. I think virtually everyone here would agree it is something that is an unacceptable situation, but there will be no substantive amendment coming forward from me at this time. I just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gouk. Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes (Hamilton West): This is just in response, Mr. Chairman, and not to belabour the point.
.0915
I did want to recognize that we are conscious of the effort put in by the member for the Reform Party. Mr. Gouk did a lot of work on this and a lot of consultation. That should be recognized.
I would add to his remarks only that certainly the circumstance may occur, but the Minister of Labour, Alfonso Gagliano, is now in the process of looking at the Canada Labour Code. As Mr. Gouk is aware - and I was made aware of it by witnesses to this committee - to avoid being mode-specific on any kind of a clause that would refer to some kind of an arbitration or a final-offer selection, etc., idea, it would be put forward via an amendment in the Canada Labour Code so that this application could be put into use across all modes.
So I think Mr. Gouk has a solid idea there, to move that idea into the domain of the Minister of Labour, and an amendment to the Canada Labour Code would probably be in the best interests of moving away from being too mode-specific - we're going to deal with only air; what are we going to do about rail and marine, etc.? - and it could be addressed in that venue.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, gentlemen.
I'd like to note the presence of Glen McDougall, the deputy chief negotiator for the ANS negotiating team, and Mr. Daniel Paris, the senior negotiator, human resources panel of the ANS negotiating team. Welcome.
We are going to move through this as efficiently as we can. I have been notified of certain amendments by the Bloc, the government, and the Reform Party. With the permission of the committee, I will attempt to group clauses where there seems to be no debate or no amendments and pass them as a block, but I will stop at each clause where I've been notified that there are amendments.
Clause 1 is postponed and will be dealt with at the end, which according to Beauchesne's is the normal procedure. So we will begin with clause 2. I note that there are a number of amendments from the Bloc.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête.
Clause 2 - Definitions
Mr. Crête (Kamouraska - Rivière-du-Loup): First of all, I would like to draw your attention to amendments C002-003.17a and C002-003.27 which we are submitting following proposals made by the greater Toronto Airport Authority. The purpose of these amendments is to specify very clearly the moment where the airport operator takes over from NAV CANADA to move and park aircrafts at the airport, since airport operators now control the movement of aircraft in the traffic area in certain airports, whereas Transport Canada has control over this in other airports.
The amendment specifies which aircraft movement in the traffic area are not NAV CANADA's responsibility, but still allows NAV CANADA to assume this responsibility when there is an agreement with the airport operator.
The amendments, of which you should each have a list, amends Bill C-20 in clause 2 by replacing line 26, on page 2, with the following:
- ly flow of air traffic, but does not include air traffic control on the manoeuvring area, except
where there is a an agreement with the operator of the aerodrome for that purpose.
- as well as the following paragraphs which deals with air traffic control services in airport zones.
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: As I'm sure everybody on this committee is now aware, I was an aircraft controller for 22 years.
Not to have air-traffic control on a manoeuvring area would be a catastrophic problem. For example, you would have a jet aircraft clearing a runway onto a taxiway that could be blocked where there is no control or direction to the jet aircraft exiting, including on a high-speed taxiway, which is part of the manoeuvring area of an airport. You would have two-way traffic on one-way taxiways. It would be totally unworkable.
.0920
Mr. Keyes: I have a point of clarification for the mover of the amendment, Mr. Chairman. When the witnesses from NAV CANADA were before the committee, they specified that they are going to do the taxiways. There's no question of that. When we look at the airport regulations, they say the airport authorities have the responsibility to look after the apron situation. So we would find this unacceptable, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I would simply like to point out that the purpose of the amendment proposed by the Greater Toronto Airport Authority was to ensure that the moment where the airport operator takes over from NAV CANADA is very clearly specified. That was the sole purpose of these amendments.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, do you wish to proceed with this? Do you wish to move your amendment 001?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes.
[English]
The Chairman: There are a number of these amendments. Is it acceptable to the committee that I simply refer to them by their number rather than read each amendment in? We'll deal with them in that manner.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall amendment 001 as proposed by Mr. Crête carry?
Mr. Crête: On division.
Mr. Gouk: Can you just clarify what you're proposing?
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, I'm informed by the clerk that if it's carried, it's on division. It cannot be negatived on division.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: That's right, yes.
[English]
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: Next is Bloc amendment 002. Mr. Crête, do you wish to move this amendment?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: It's the same explanation. Yes, I so move.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: I just want to point out that with 001 being negatived, I would think this one would automatically go. You can't have a definition that says you're going to be fined something but not be able to carry it out because the first amendment was defeated. The second amendment is in fact out of order because the first one was defeated.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gouk. I don't have it identified that way, but is that the case?
Mr. Crête, I am informed by counsel that is indeed the case.
Mr. Crête: Okay.
The Chairman: Now I have on my list here Bloc amendment 1. Is this all part of the same family of amendments?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes.
[English]
The Chairman: Are amendments 2 and 3 also part of this?
Mr. Crête: No, they're separate sections.
The Chairman: Okay. Mr. Crête, do you wish to move an amendment?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I would like to provide a brief explanation of amendment number no 3. We want the House to obtain a detailed list of the assets the minister hands over to NAV CANADA. This is a question of transparency. The amendment states that:
(3) The Minister may with the approval of the standing committee of the House of Commons established to review matters relating to transportation, designate any assets.
Through the standing committee, we would like the House of Commons to obtain a list of the assets that the minister will hand over to NAV CANADA corporation, so that all parliamentarians can be made aware of this transaction.
[English]
The Chairman: Do you have any comments, Mr. Gouk?
Mr. Gouk: I see a conflict between what this says and what the member from the Bloc just said. He said he would like to have a list go to the House so that what is transferred can be seen, and I certainly have no problem with that at all. However, his amendment doesn't say that. His amendment says that the list has to go to the House, and the House then has to approve it. That's a substantial difference between what the member proposed verbally and what is in writing.
.0925
If he would wish to clarify that, I would support that certainly the House should have a list of the assets and that they should be made available, but not necessarily that the House has to go through that list one by one to approve them.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: Perhaps Mr. Gouk would like to propose a sub-amendment if he feels that the very fact of having the list is sufficient.
[English]
Mr. Gouk: I just wanted to clarify what the member from the Bloc really wants, because he talks about providing a list to the House, but his amendment calls for the House to approve. I'd just like clarification on what it is he is looking for.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: Maybe before we proceed with this motion or even amendments to the motion, I'll provide a clarification for the member of the Bloc opposite.
We see a review by the Standing Committee on Transport as neither appropriate nor necessary. The language of this clause does not give the minister carte blanche, as is being put forward by the member. The assets that are designated for transfer have to meet two criteria, and they are set out in clause 2. Quite frankly, if lists are needed to be looked at for what the member speaks of, they can of course be found in the main estimates when they come around. So this can be accomplished in three different ways.
The Chairman: And the committee has the power to review anything the committee wishes to review.
Mr. Keyes: The committee is the master of its own destiny, that's right.
Mr. Gouk: Let's not get carried away. We know that's not true.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: There will be many changes in airport operations and that's why it seems important to me to have a list at the outset that will clearly define what is handed over to NAV CANADA, in anticipation of the impact of this on all the consultations and issues to be dealt with in the future. I think it's important to know exactly, at the outset, what will be handed over for each airport, so that in one, two or five years we don't end up in appeal situations where we will not have the necessary information.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: And that list, Mr. Chairman, would appear in the estimates.
The Chairman: Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan (Leeds - Grenville): I would suggest that there is a list available. If the BQ wants the list, you might want to give it to them.
The Chairman: Sure.
Mr. Jordan: What is the next item?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: It's important that this be tabled in the House. It's not simply a question of circulating documents in private. We've been able to judge for ourselves the importance of transparency in the area of airports.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: It is, Mr. Chairman, through the estimates.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes, you were saying it will be transferred.
Do you have any further comment, Mr. Crête?
Mr. Crête: No.
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: Now, does that affect amendment 2? No, it does not. Mr. Crête, do you wish to move amendment 2?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The amendment deals with the designation of employees and amends clause 2 by replacing line 41 to 44 on page 5 with the following:
- List of designated employees
- List of designated employees
- (4.1) The Minister shall not place the name of any employee on the list referred to in subsection
(4) in respect of whom the Minister has not received the approval of the trade union representing
the employee.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the last thing the not-for-profit corporation is going to need is more administration overhead. Quite frankly, we had the unions before us, and the process for designating employees is satisfactory to both them and the bargaining agents, who also appeared before the committee.
.0930
Amendment negatived
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The bill currently reads as follows:
(5) The minister may, before the transfer date, designate as designated northern or remote services any civil air navigation services that are provided at or in respect of such northern or remote locations as are specified by the minister.
I move that clause 2 be amended by replacing lines 1 to 6, on page 6, with the following:
(5) Before the transfer date and with the approval of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons established to review matters relating to transportation the government of each province, with respect to its own province, or the minister may designate as designated northern or remote services any civil air navigation services that are provided at or in respect of such northern or remote locations as are specified by the minister or a government of a province in respect of locations in that province.
We want to make sure that the provincial governments and the Standing Committee on Transportation can have some input with regard to designation by the minister of air traffic services provided in northern and remote regions. This is a representation that we heard many times, notably from small carriers in the northern part of Western Canada as well as carriers in the tourism industry.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: I'm speaking to this amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure the members opposite will be delighted to learn that in consultation with the provincial and territorial governments, the list of designated northern and remote services has already been established.
The consultation resulted in some changes on the lists, and to have the Standing Committee on Transport give its approval each time these lists come out is, quite frankly, inconsistent with our responsibilities as a standing committee. I just can't imagine the time lapse that might have to take place between putting forward new lists or alterations to lists and having the committee meet to approve those kinds of lists. That's the inconsistency I speak of.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: It's still a good idea to make sure the provincial governments can have some input on this. The first statement the officials made clearly set out that NAV CANADA could make choices without taking into account regional economic impact. If the political powers that be want to maintain some control over factors that are this important, they can do so by requesting the tabling of the list with the committee, among other things.
It's possible to proceed this way without having to examine the issue every day or every week. The government can undoubtedly do it once a year.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, to clarify this for the honourable member, these lists are created up front. These lists are created in consultation with the provinces and the territories. In fact, I believe the province even has the power of veto over these lists, so I don't know where he's coming from.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keyes. Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: Again, there's one thing I'll point out. The way I read it, this is basically giving the provinces the right to make these designations.
A voice: No.
Mr. Gouk: That's the way it reads here.
A voice: In the amendments.
The Chairman: In the amendments? Sorry, you're right.
Mr. Gouk: Yes, in the amendments. It gives the province the right. If that were necessary, and if the Bloc felt it necessary that the provinces should have these rights, evidence to this extent from the various provinces should have been presented during the hearings we had. The Bloc should have brought forward whatever evidence they had, or can even now, in support of their amendment. But I've heard no evidence either during witness testimony or now as to a demand on the part of any province for this.
.0935
Mr. Keyes: We've made our point.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Gouk: I was here for all the hearings.
Amendment negatived
Clause 2 agreed to on division
The Chairman: I have a block of clauses here. I'll go over them slowly so everybody knows....
Mr. Gouk: You might have to redefine that term so there's no confusion, because we do have blocks of things, you know, and they're not trying to reform the bill, so don't be so liberal with your statements.
The Chairman: Okay, I have a grouping of clauses, a gaggle, from clause 3 to clause 11. I note that I have not been informed of any amendments to those. With the permission of the committee, I will group clauses 3 through to 11.
Clauses 3 to 11 inclusive agreed to
The Chairman: That takes us to clause 12, and I have been notified of an amendment, BQ-4.
On clause 12-Technical and operational standards
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier (Blainville - Deux-Montagnes): This refers to clause 12, subsection 2 which stipulates:
(2) ... the minister shall, after having consulted with interested persons, recommend to the Governor in Council that the standards... be incorporated by reference...
The purpose of our amendment is to specify the notion of ``interested persons'', by adding, after line 30, on page 9, the following:
- Definition of ``interested persons''
a) any group representing passengers who have notified the minister in writing of their desire to be consulted under subsection (2);
b) the Standing Committee of the House of Commons established to review matters relating to transportation; and
c) the Agency.
It's therefore not exclusive. It's simply a matter of specifying who the ``interested persons'' are, so that both categories are consulted if they so request.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes, is that advice for the committee or is it a comment?
Mr. Keyes: Reviewing it, Mr. Chairman, I don't understand why. We have an established process that works well. The minister uses the same consultation and regulatory approval process in this case as is currently used in other aviation regulatory matters.
Can you imagine? This proposal by the BQ specifically mentions ``any group representing passengers'' as an interested party. The technical and operational standards and minimum insurance requirements for aeronautical radio nav services are technical matters. It would be unlikely that the groups representing passengers would have many views on these types of issues. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I'm restating again that the process we have works well.
The Chairman: Monsieur Mercier.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: I understand perfectly well that there is no question of consulting all organizations representing passengers. This says that we will consult organizations who request it. Obviously, if it's a technical matter that is of no interest to them, they will not request to be consulted; but if they do ask to be consulted, they can be.
[English]
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Chairman, it might interest the committee to know that currently - and again, I can only speak from one segment, which is air traffic control - there is no liability insurance. And of course people will say ``But it's the government''. They are individually licensed individuals. They carry their own licences. They do not work under a master licence of the government.
.0940
The government has, in past practice, accepted responsibility for liability on the part of a controller, although if it is a case of negligence on the part of a controller, it reserves the right not to do that, and there is no insurance whatsoever.
So this is an additional standard that's been imposed by this legislation, and it already gives the public much more than it has under the current government régime.
The Chairman: Shall we proceed?
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: We so move.
[English]
Amendment negatived
Clause 12 agreed to on division
Clause 13 agreed to
On clause 14 - Corporation may make changes
The Chairman: I have a BQ amendment, 4.1. Mr. Mercier.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Clause 14 reads as follows:
14. The corporation may, in accordance with this Act but subject to the provisions of the Aeronautics Act and of any regulations made under that act that relate to aviation safety or the safety of the public,
a) introduce or increase civil air navigation services;
b) terminate or reduce civil air navigation services;
and
c) close or relocate facilities used by it in connection with civil air navigation services.
We move that the clause be amended by adding the following after line 12, on page 10:
- for greater certainty
The point is therefore to limit this power. In other words, the corporation cannot propose any changes unless these two conditions are satisfied: that there be no conflict with any of the obligations and that the airport operator is not prevented from responding to such needs.
[English]
Mr. Gouk: I wonder if the movers of this motion could give an example. Are they suggesting that if it is the duty of a pilot of a particular operator to fly from A to B, this may inhibit him from doing it in the way in which he has normally done it? Is that what they're inferring? Because I'm having trouble relating this to the real world, could they give us some specific example?
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Mr. Chairman, the point is to limit the corporation's power to propose reductions and to ensure that the corporation will not act against the public interest because it will have been constrained to respect these two conditions that we've stated.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: I have a problem with it. What happens in the circumstance of a commercial airport such as the Edmonton Municipal Airport? What will happen when the airports that the government now has under Transport Canada will be sold under the national airports plan? What will happen to all of those airports? This amendment would not apply to any of the airports newly created under the plan.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: This amendment is of a general nature.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Mercier, could you repeat that comment?
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: The amendment is of a general nature.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: It's a bit too general.
The Chairman: Shall we proceed, Mr. Mercier?
Mr. Keyes: The colonel is over the general on this one.
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: Shall clause 14 carry?
.0945
Mr. Keyes: What about this new clause?
The Chairman: We're going to ignore clause 14.1. It's going to be dealt with. The essence of BQ amendment 7.1 will be dealt with under clause 18.
We will proceed to approving clause 14. Shall it carry?
Clause 14 agreed to on division
On clause 15 - Notice of changes
The Chairman: On clause 15, I have BQ amendment 5.1.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I move that Bill C-20 and clause 15 be amended by replacing line 18, on page 10, with the following:
- cant group of users or an operator of an aerodrome in a material way, the
15.(1) Where the corporation proposes to do anything mentioned in section 14 and, in the opinion of the Board of directors of the corporation acting reasonably and in good faith, the proposal is likely to affect a significant group of users in a material way, the corporation shall give notice of the proposal in accordance with this section.
To this, we would like to add:
- or an operator of an aerodrome.
[English]
The Chairman: Excuse me. I assume that was the interpreter making a comment.
Mr. Crête, you're dealing with BQ amendment 5.1?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes, that's right.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you. There was just a little confusion as to where we were. I guess the interpreters are also reading off the bill list.
It has been moved by M. Crête that Bloc amendment 5.1 carry. Mr. Keyes, do you wish to speak to this?
Mr. Keyes: I have just one word, Mr. Chairman: superfluous.
Amendment negatived.
The Chairman: BQ amendment 6 is next. Just to be clear where we are, it's on page 10. That's the number that's written in marker.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Are we at amendment BQ-6 on clause 15?
The Chairman: Yes, BQ-6.
Mr. Crête: I'd like to give an explanation. This clause states that:
- persons interested in making representations in writing to the corporation about the proposal
may do so by writing to the address set out in the notice.
I therefore move that clause 15 be amended by replacing lines 28 to 40, on page 10, and lines 1 to 2, on page 11 with the following.
- how notice is to be given
a) published in every newspaper that primarily serves the regions that, in the opinion of the corporation, will be affected by the proposal;
b) sent, by mail and by electronic means
(i) to every band council in every region that, in the opinion of the corporation, will be affected by the proposal.
(ii) to organizations representing users whose members will, in the opinion of the corporation, be affected by the proposal and
(iii) to every user and other person...
Since not every one has e-mail or is likely to get it tomorrow morning, we have to make sure that the people consulted can be made aware that this exists. It therefore has to be sent.
If we're talking about putting this on the Internet, we have to specify that the dissemination of information must be done correctly so that the public cannot then claim that it was not made aware of the notice of changes.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête. Mr. Gouk.
.0950
Mr. Gouk: This one I have a little more of a problem with in that I partially agree with it. The bill itself doesn't go far enough, and the Bloc has made some valid points on this.
I do have a concern, however, that in attempting to correct a shortage in the bill, they have maybe gone a little too far with their amendment. I don't know how at this point in time we reconcile that. Clearly the bill does have a shortcoming, relying on electronic means to notify people when that is not something that is commonplace in the south, never mind in the north.
Mr. Keyes: Any concerned individual, group, user or anyone else can register with NAV CAN and receive all NAV CAN information back at any time. So you have a sort of reverse onus there. If you are an operator, if you're a user, or if you are there, you can always receive all this information at any time by just registering yourself with NAV CAN.
Beyond that, and beyond the notice requirements already in subclause 15(3), you have the additional requirement that NAV CAN publish in the two largest-circulation English and French-language newspapers. That's on top of all those requirements built into subclause 15.3.
So we would say - and quite frankly the witnesses who came before us said - all this information and the opportunity to put themselves on NAV CAN's list are more than sufficient.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Given the experience of previous years, we cannot presume that citizens will be aware of everything, at all times, and it's important to do things in such a way that people who are less well organized have a chance to express their opinion and know that they can bring about changes.
I also appreciated Mr. Gouk's comment. If you think that our wording is too long or goes too far, we would be prepared to examine any proposal to reduce it. It seems obvious to all that the bill doesn't go far enough and that we will end up in difficult situations where people will feel very frustrated that they were not able to participate in the consultation and they will have one more argument to oppose any change and perhaps use means that we may consider undesirable.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: I'd like some clarification. Mr. Keyes mentioned the publication of this in major French and English-language newspapers, but I do not see that within the bill. Could he clarify where he got that from?
Also, with regard to the first part of subclause 15(3), ``The Corporation shall send, by mail or by electronic means'', could he give us his view on whether that means the choice as to how to do it is the corporation's? Is the intent there that if the user doesn't have electronic means, then obviously the corporation can't do it and must do it by mail in that situation?
Could you clarify those two points?
Mr. Keyes: Sure. I suggest we go to the negotiator of the deal for clarification.
By the way, in answer to the first, I'm just going to dig up the bylaw for you now. The bylaws contain the advertisements in the French and English papers, and I'll get that out for you, Jim, to assure you of that.
The Chairman: Mr. McDougall.
Mr. Glen McDougall (Deputy Chief Negotiator, ANS Negotiating Team, Department of Transport): It is true that we have required in the bylaws of the corporation a provision that notification must be in the two largest-circulation papers in the country in both official languages. That is a bylaw that can only be changed with the approval of the Minister of Transport. That is not in the bill.
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Chairman, can you clarify for me in what manner one might move a subamendment at this time, or propose an amendment to a motion that is on the table? There are parts of this that I think have stronger merit, shall we say, than others. I believe this goes too far, but some parts of it I would like to vote in favour of. Is there a vehicle for doing that?
.0955
The Chairman: Are you responding to Mr. Gouk's question?
Mr. Keyes: If I could.
Article 5, section (f) of the by-laws, Mr. Gouk, reads:
- Such notice shall be published by the Corporation in the two largest circulation English
language daily newspapers and the two largest circulation French language daily newspapers in
Canada. The Corporation shall also consult with such persons as are reasonably appropriate
prior to the implementation of such proposed increases, or proposed material reduction of
facilities or levels of service, as the case may be, and such consultation shall include the
provision by the Corporation to those persons of justification for the proposed increases, or
proposed material reduction of facilities or levels of service, as the case may be.
Mr. Gouk: I don't know what the largest-circulation French newspaper is, but I doubt that people in small communities in northern Quebec or in other northern parts of the country would take much comfort from the fact that it was published, for example, in The Globe and Mail. Not many people in my area get The Globe and Mail. I'm not in a northern area, yet not many people get it, and the further north you go, the less likely it is that would occur.
I think the idea of publishing in newspapers in the area that is going to be affected is a very reasonable thing to ask for.
I would certainly like to support that portion of it, but I go back to you, Mr. Chairman, and ask if there's a vehicle by which I can either amend or put in a subamendment so I can vote on that portion of the Bloc's amendment, which I support.
Mr. Keyes: As a former air traffic controller, Jim will also appreciate the fact that if you were to suggest putting a notice in a local newspaper in the particular area where the change is to occur, what happens when you have an en route service? That means that a change in an en route service would require publication in every newspaper in Canada, rather than, as the bill suggests, NAV CAN having the opportunity either by mail or by electronic mail to make those consultations known to the users of the system.
Mr. Gouk: An en route service is not transcontinental; it is only segment-specific, unless you're trying to shut down -
Mr. Keyes: I'm not talking about transcontinental; I'm talking -
The Chairman: To allow us to expedite this, Mr. Gouk, I'm told you need to prepare in writing a subamendment, which you can move here. If you'd like a bit of time to do that, we can stand this clause and move on and then come back, having given you a few minutes to do that.
Mr. Gouk: Okay. Do you need it in both languages?
The Chairman: No. It will be translated, but you don't need to produce it in both languages.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, does that mean that the clause will be stood?
[English]
The Chairman: Right.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: All right.
[English]
The Chairman: We have two other BQ amendments to this clause.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make another suggestion. Could we vote on this amendment one paragraph at a time, so that the parts that seem more acceptable can be adopted?
[English]
Mr. Gouk: It would certainly expedite it.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: There could be two separate votes, one on part a) and another on part b).
[English]
Mr. Gouk: That would certainly expedite it. If what's in the interest of the chair is to expedite this clause-by-clause consideration, then that would do so.
The Chairman: I am informed that, as we have to adopt the entire clause in any event, that may expedite the writing of the subamendment but it doesn't expedite the passage of the clause.
If you would like, Mr. Gouk, I can stand this clause in its entirety.
Mr. Gouk: One moment.
.1000
The Chairman: Are we all set to proceed? It is my understanding, Mr. Gouk, that you wish to move a subamendment to BQ amendment 6, and your subamendment would strike out everything below paragraph (a) from BQ amendment 6.
Mr. Gouk: Yes, that's correct, Mr. Chairman.
Subamendment negatived
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: I have notice here of a further Bloc amendment 6.1, which appears on page 12 of your package. We will proceed with that.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I move that Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 2, on page 11, the following new clause:
15.1 The corporation shall not do anything mentioned in subsection 14.1 without first consulting
a) a significant group of users; and
b) any operator of an aerodrome, in the opinion of the corporation, will be affected in a material way by the proposal.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure greater security for the users of the airport and facilities concerned.
[English]
Amendment negatived
Clause 15 agreed to on division
Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to
On clause 18 - Notice of termination
The Chairman: On clause 18 I have notice of BQ amendment 6.2, which is on page 13 in your package.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: We can simply withdraw it.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Crête.
Next is amendment BQ-7 on page 14.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: With regard to this amendment, we would like clause 18 to be considered as adopted on division because it's the repetition of a debate that took place on another clause, unless the majority is prepared to accept this amendment. It's the same logic. In this amendment, we refer to publishing in the dailies. So essentially, it's the same amendment as we had earlier, but on different issues. I simply suggested this one be considered defeated.
.1005
[English]
The Chairman: Again, maybe we should vote on it, Mr. Crete, even though you're absolutely right that it is a repetition.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: In your second package, members, which is a small additional package of BQ amendments, I have notice of BQ-7.1. That's on page 1 of your smaller package.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: This amendment seems major to us. It touches on a crucial point, the fact that the bill gives NAV CANADA very broad powers to make decisions on any future equipment and facilities.
We move that Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 7 on page 12 the following new clause:
- Duty of the corporation
This amendment is an effort to moderate the bill. NAV CANADA has incredible scope in its decision-making, as do certain airports in the regions mentioned, be they northern or remote, and they're not subjected to any kind of constraints. This was confirmed by the officials from the department.
I would even be ready to bet that if we pass the bill without this amendment, we will have the same kind of difficulties than those we encountered with the Canada Post Corporation, a few years ago, when there were no regulations preventing the closure of post offices.
As a matter of fact, that's one of the reasons - though not the only one - that led to the defeat of the Conservative government. The Liberals corrected this situation with the moratorium on the closure of small post offices, and if there are no proposals of this type here, we will see political battles that could be avoided if we had some method of adequate consultation such as the one we are proposing. Every time services in these regions have to be reduced or terminated, people have to have some way to express their opposition and present their argument. I think that this sort of process would also be of great benefit to members of Parliament by allowing them to avoid difficult situations.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: I understand where the Bloc is coming from on this, but at the same time, there is a process within the bill for any affected users. In fact, they have more power to stop NAV CANADA in northern areas than they do in non-northern areas. I was on the edge of having some concerns that there was almost too much constraint placed on the corporation on the power of what users were able to do in certain circumstances.
In the case of social economic impact, that would obviously be one of the arguments the users brought forward. If in fact the users had no problem with the proposal, then I can't see where it would go beyond that. So I understand what the members are trying to do, but I just can't see where there's a need for that.
Mr. Keyes: I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Gouk, Mr. Chairman, because the policy on the designated northern and remote services already includes that mechanism Mr. Gouk speaks of, and it's in clauses 18 through 22.
To address the primary concern of the Bloc, which is to avoid a Canada Post kind of situation, Canada Post does not have the opportunity. As stated in this bill, the provincial veto will be there and it will be supreme, not to mention the fact that even after a veto, which can only be overturned by the minister, he also has to consider all these factors before he would even go so far as to overturn a veto by a province.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Those are our arguments. It's a question of principle. I just wanted to add that I want a recorded vote on this motion.
.1010
[English]
Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 2
The Chairman: I should note, although it comes up a bit later, that that also eliminates Bloc amendment 8, which is an amendment consequential to 7.1. It will come up in just a minute.
Clause 18 agreed to on division
Clause 19 agreed to
The Chairman: Clause 20 is the clause where the BQ amendment 8 applied, but, as it is not able to proceed because it is consequential to BQ-7.1, we will just eliminate BQ-8.
Clause 20 agreed to
On clause 21 - Announcement of termination
The Chairman: On clause 21, I have BQ-9.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: It's the amendment in publishing in newspapers again. Let's just say it's been defeated.
[English]
The Chairman: Are you wishing to withdraw this one also, Mr. Crête?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I did not say I wanted to withdraw it. I said it was the same kind of amendment we already proposed, so therefore we can say it's been defeated.
[English]
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to
On clause 23 - Policies to be established
The Chairman: On clause 23, I have BQ amendment 9.1, which is on page 22.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes, one moment.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: This is much like the previous Bloc amendment for consultations with everybody. I think we've gone around the horn on this one.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes, but it's not exactly in the same spirit as the previous one, because this one says:
23. (1) Year after the transfer date, after consultation ;with those users, operators of aerodromes, representatives of municipalities, the federal government or the provincial governments and interested persons who have notified the corporation in writing of their desire to be consulted, establish policies.
The purpose of the preceding amendment was to prevent closing without consultation, whereas the purpose of this amendment is for the corporation to establish rules after the users have been consulted.
Therefore, the amendment is valid because it is not the same as the previous one.
.1015
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes, does your advice repeat?
Mr. Keyes: My advice repeats that the requirements for public notice are there, including persons to receive the notice. They should be the same as in the case of proposed changes and services. The government proposal accomplishes all those objectives, so the principle is the same and the response is the same.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Now we go to BQ amendment 9.1.1. Mr. Crête.
M. Crête: C'est dans la logique de l'autre. Votons.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: We move to BQ amendment 9.2 on page 23 in your big package. It is moved by Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Oui.
[English]
The Chairman: Are we ready to vote?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I'd like to slip in a word here.
This amendment was proposed by the Greater Toronto Airport Authority. As the bill now stands, it is possible to veto the provision of additional services requested by a person willing to pay for them.
- ...unless the person requesting them (a) establishes through written evidence that a consensus in
favour of the request exists among users who will be affected in a material way by the provision
of the additional services; and...
In our opinion, this amendment would prevent paralysis in the development of new services.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, can we defer to the official, Mr. McDougall?
The Chairman: Mr. McDougall.
Mr. McDougall: Yesterday I had a discussion with John Crichton, the chairman of NAV CANADA, and we discussed this point. We had some sympathy with it.
We understand NAV CANADA does not intend to charge a requester of excess services, provided that the users are onside. We have a provision in the bill that says there must be a consensus or majority of users behind a request for excess services. NAV CANADA does not want to charge, so we recommend that we drop paragraph 23(5)(b) altogether, ``agrees in writing to pay all incremental costs'', etc.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I don't see paragraph b).
[English]
The Chairman: The proposal being made by NAV CAN is that paragraph 23(5)(b)....
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, we would have to defeat the Bloc amendment and then introduce our government amendment, which would do exactly what Mr. McDougall suggested.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: I'm sorry, but I would ask you to repeat the amendment. Is paragraph b) contained in the government's amendment?
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Yes, the government amendment is the next one on the hit parade. Mr. McDougall has explained why we are going to propose the amendment.
.1020
The Chairman: Perhaps he could move the dropping of that.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Let's first vote on our amendment. We'll see what will happen. Then we can vote on the government's amendment.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Well, let's do this one first and then I'll explain.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it now, as a result of consultations between Mr. McDougall and NAV CANADA, a suggestion was put forward that paragraph 23(5)(b) be removed, which in essence addresses the concerns of the Bloc. So if they would like to move a motion to withdraw paragraph 23(5)(b), which in essence does what they're talking about, we'd be prepared to accept that amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: In the government's amendment, you would be willing to remove...
[English]
The Chairman: No, before we go to that.
Mr. Crête: Yes, but there is no (b) in French.
Mr. Gouk: Oh, okay. There's your problem. There's no (b) in French. The French have already solved the problem. It's up to the English.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chairman: I am informed, Mr. Keyes, that we should proceed with the government amendment -
Mr. Keyes: And then revisit paragraph 23(5)(b)?
The Chairman: And then, Mr. Crête, if you would like to move an amendment eliminating that paragraph, we could do that.
Mr. Keyes: Sure, okay. Let's go to the government amendment then.
The Chairman: It is moved by Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan: If you have the bill in front of you, it's on page 14. We're proposing an amendment to paragraph 23(5)(a) of the bill. I can recall this being a matter of discussion when witnesses were coming before us, and I think there was a general consensus that this needed to be clarified.
So what we're proposing in paragraph 23(5)(a) is to delete lines 17, 18, 19 and 20 and substitute the following:
- that a majority of the users who will be affected in a material way by the provision of the
additional services agree to the provision of the additional services; and
Do they have copies of this in front of them, or do I have to read it all?
The Chairman: Yes, they do.
Mr. Jordan: So you know what we would substitute there. Following paragraph 23(5)(b) would be subclauses 23(6) and 23(7). That's the amendment.
The Chairman: Is there any discussion on this? Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Perhaps we should ask this question of the experts. It says that a majority of the ``users who will be affected in a material way''. How do you define``in a material way''?
.1025
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. McDougall.
Mr. McDougall: We have not defined ``material way'' anywhere in the bill in order that the parties at the time will have a chance to decide whether or not this is going to be a material effect.
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: It seems to me that a major portion of this amendment will be affected by the impending government motion, or possibly the Bloc motion, deleting paragraph 23(5)(b). What we're getting into is an amendment to change a clause that we are then going to.... We've sort of agreed already that we're going to change and delete most of what we're amending. I would suggest to either that they should maybe write a new amendment that brings in the first part, paragraph 23(5)(a), if that's what they propose, and put in there the deletion of paragraph 23(5)(b), and that would be it.
Mr. Keyes: If I can explain, you'll notice that in the government amendment, G-1, it says: ``(b) by adding, immediately after line 23 on page 14''. What we are doing, in essence, is putting the government amendment in. Then, at the suggestion of Mr. McDougall after yesterday's consultations with NAV CAN, we're going to come back to delete that part of (b) that we are addressing through Mr. McDougall's concerns and negotiations. So it's just a matter of procedure. We have to do this first to go to revisit the other afterwards.
Mr. Gouk: I think the way it's written is much more clear than the way it's proposed to be amended.
Mr. Keyes: When you put it in the hands of lawyers, Jim, you know what happens.
Mr. Jordan: Do you think it's clarified when it gets to them, Mr. Chairman?
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. Keyes: Did you want to adopt the suggestion made by Mr. Hubbard - the proposal to drop paragraph 23(5)(b)?
Mr. Jordan: That's just a formality.
The Chairman: It needs to be moved and voted on.
Mr. Jordan: Oh, okay. Yes, I'll move that.
The Chairman: It's moved by Mr. Jordan that -
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Did I understand that you want to make another amendment to the government's amendment which has just been adopted?
[English]
The Chairman: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The government members have adopted an amendment to add something to the bill. Shouldn't they have proposed a sub-amendment before adopting the amendment? Perhaps we should check with the clerk.
There is nothing in French.
Allright, it's again a question of language. There is no paragraph b). Thank you for that clarification. It means that the legal translators will have their jobs cut out for them.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Actually, it will be deleted, so there won't be any rewording.
Mr. Gouk: Yes, but you have to have something to delete. You can't delete something that isn't there.
Mr. Keyes: In paragraph 23(5)(b), the English is being deleted.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Your amendment will only affect the paragraph in English.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: So then it will look exactly like the French when we delete paragraph 23(5)(b).
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 23 as amended agreed to on division
On clause 24 - Directions - northern or remote locations
The Chairman: We have amendment BQ-10 for clause 24.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: This amendment resembles previous ones. Let's put it to a vote to see whether it will be carried or defeated.
[English]
Mr. Gouk: Hold on, I'm having trouble finding BQ-10. Okay, go ahead.
The Chairman: Mr. Crête has moved it and has spoken to it.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
.1030
Clause 24 agreed to on division
Clauses 25 to 31 inclusive agreed to
On clause 32 - Charges for availability or provision of services
The Chairman: On clause 32 I have a notice of BQ amendment 10.1.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Are we on amendment BQ-10.1?
The Chairman: Yes, BQ-10.1
Mr. Crête: The amendment would allow the imposition of charges for national defence. This argument was made mainly by... In any case, the example I remembered best is, I believe, the Winnipeg airport where rather undue pressure would create an unequal situation compared to other airports.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: I too heard the testimony and the concerns raised by the Winnipeg airport, but their concern was that because such a large portion of their traffic is military, they specifically may be hurt by the fact that no fees are collected from the military. But it's a global charging system, not an airport-specific one.
I have raised some concerns about whether the military should be paying or not. I have heard the rationale for why they're not - the other side of it. I'm prepared to accept it. I would just want to reiterate that the concern brought forward by the Winnipeg airport specifically has been addressed and their incorrect impression has been clarified for them, I believe.
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk, you're substantially correct. There was a discussion between Mr. Crichton and the Winnipeg airport and a subsequent letter, which clarified the situation in keeping with the testimony we had here at the committee. I believe that has satisfied all parties on that concern.
Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: However, it might also be unfair if every carrier which has an indirect link with the defence sector... Wouldn't this be a way to guarantee a better cost system for real users if there was some sort of a user tariff scale for the Minister of Defence?
[English]
The Chairman: Are there any further comments on this?
Mr. Keyes: Just to say ``no'' would be sufficient, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Nancy Reagan.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: I then have notice of government amendment G-2. Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Hubbard (Miramichi): Mr. Chairman, this changes paragraph 32.(2)(a) to read
on a user who is a person acting under the authority of the Minister of National Defence;
That should bring us into line with the evidence we've received.
Amendment agreed to
The Chairman: I see there is also notice of government amendment G-3 on page 31 of your large package.
Mr. Hubbard: Mr. Chairman, the motion is that clause 32 be amended to add immediately after line 29:
- (6) The Telecommunications Act does not apply in respect of any charges imposed by the
Corporation pursuant to this Act.
Mr. Gouk: Would the government care to add just a line or two of explanation for the record?
Mr. Keyes: By way of explanation, Jim, you might have been here when there was the concern by NAV CANADA that under a quirk, this legislation would normally fall under the CRTC. You would have to go and make application to them.
Instead, the regulations will provide, in and of themselves, the responsibility needed for them to report. Therefore, the CRTC isn't going to be the body that -
Mr. Gouk: This is the way to deal with it.
Mr. Keyes: Exactly.
Mr. Gouk: Okay.
Mr. Keyes: By saying that it does not apply in respect.
Amendment agreed to
Clause 32 as amended agreed to
Clauses 33 and 34 agreed to
On clause 35 - Charging principles
The Chairman: I have a notice to speak to amendment BQ-10.2 on page 3 of the small package.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête.
Mr. Crête: The purpose of this amendment is to financially support smaller carriers out of the charges paid by large international carriers for flying over Canadian air space. It would be a type of equalization.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: The Bloc may not be familiar with the International Civil Aviation Organization, but this certainly breaks the fundamental rule of international charging as slated by ICAO. International aviation must not cross-subsidize domestic aviation.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 35 agreed to on division
On clause 36 - Notice of new or revised charge
The Chairman: I see a notice of BQ-11 on page 33 of the large package.
Mr. Keyes: It's the same principle, the same response, Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Yes, it's the same one.
[English]
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 36 carried on division
On clause 37 - Announcement of new or revised charge
The Chairman: I note BQ-12, page 35, is the same thing.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 37 agreed to on division
Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to
On clause 40 - Announcement of approved charge
The Chairman: On clause 40, amendment BQ-13 is the same thing.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 40 agreed to on division
Clauses 41 to 45 inclusive agreed to
On clause 46 - Effect of appeal
The Chairman: I note amendment BQ-14 on page 39 of the large package. Mr. Crête.
.1040
Mr. Gouk: When they get around to putting it in, I'd like to speak on it.
The Chairman: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: This amendment is based on another one concerning the appeals process and which we have already presented. We will simply withdraw it.
[English]
The Chairman: They're going to withdraw that.
Clause 46 agreed to
Clauses 47 to 52 inclusive agreed to
On clause 53 - Decision final
The Chairman: I note amendment BQ-15 on page 40 of the large package.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Our amendment would allow the Minister to appeal decisions made by the National Transportation Agency regarding charges paid by carriers. There would be more political control over charges. It would represent a final appeal for the public and a chance to influence NAV CANADA's decision. That's the purpose of the amendment.
[English]
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 53 agreed to on division
Clauses 54 to 56 inclusive agreed to
On clause 57 - Exempt aircraft
The Chairman: I note that we have new clauses. What does that mean: ``new clauses''? Oh, I'm sorry, it's amendment BQ-15.1 on page 4 of the small package.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: This amendment is based on representations made by small carriers with a view to creating a constituent assembly whose mandate would be to review any rate increase or change in service. It would represent small associations whose members are small airline carriers who sometimes find it hard to be heard, especially by NAV CANADA's board of directors. It would prevent large carriers from monopolizing appointments and from them building a united front on NAV CANADA's board of directors.
Many witnesses spoke to that issue. For instance, the assembly might represent l'Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens (the Quebec Association of Airline carriers). The association told us it represented several small carriers, whereas the Canadian association was more or less controlled, or at least financed, by very big carriers. So the creation of a constituent assembly might help smaller carriers provide a counterweight to the Canadian association.
[English]
Mr. Gouk: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: When we're referring to clause 57, the entire section deals with the seizure and detention of aircraft. It sounds like they're talking about something totally different in their amendment.
Could we just get that clarified? Have we got a wrong number? Or am I just have a problem following what they're trying to do as it relates to seizure of aircraft?
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk, I'm informed that we are dealing with new clauses in addition to clause 57. They're new clauses in addition to the current clause 57.
Mr. Gouk: Okay. They're proposing a subclause 57(1), but there is in fact a subclause 57(1) already. That's where the confusion lies. There's also a subclause 57(2), for that matter.
The Chairman: It's subclause 57(1) as opposed to clause 57.1
Mr. Gouk: Okay.
.1045
The Chairman: Life's an education.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): I would like to follow up on what my colleague said about the testimony of small carriers.
We know that times are sometimes tough for small carriers when there is an increase, however small, in the price of a ticket. Their profit margin is only about 1 p. 100. At the moment, some carriers in my riding are very worried. I know, because I belong to that sector.
So I just want to confirm that it would be a good idea if small carriers were better represented. Someone mentioned Brian Jenner, the president of the Association québécoise des transporteurs aériens, because it seemed his words would carry weight with the committee. I think it would be very important. The survival of certain small carriers is at stake.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: In essence what the Bloc is proposing here is a constituent assembly of sorts - aside from the fact that if we were to adopt this motion we'd have to revisit the entire bill, from stem to stern, on every regulatory measure that's included in it, because they would all have to be readdressed.
Speaking on the positive, this bill already contains all the regulatory checks and balances that are needed. The charging principles, the notice provisions, and the consulting process are already built into this bill. We've just spent weeks going through this bill and making all this possible.
That is not to mention that of course NAV CANADA, as a not-for-profit corporation charged with the responsibility of running the navigation system in this country, has to comply with all the commercial principles.
I suggest that the bill has already put forward its regulatory checks and balances to provide for the necessary representation that will be made between NAV CANADA, the users, and the aerodromes.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: In any case, that point of view does not seem to be shared by certain small carriers whom I spoke to. In fact, they seemed rather disappointed. That's all I can say.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: I would like to add one more thing. The member opposite stated what Mr. Jenner had been trying to bring forward, and I think that's what's caused the member to bring this particular amendment forward.
I'm searching for it. I don't have it at my fingertips.
I don't know where to begin with this. First he says he wants this considered; then it's made known to members of this committee that in fact Mr. Jenner was invited to be part of a consultative board to consult with NAV CANADA and to be part of the advisory group. He rejected that offer.
Yesterday it was offered; yesterday it was rejected. Today it's offered. Who's to say that it won't be rejected again because Mr. Jenner isn't being asked to be on the board of directors?
We're going with commercial principles here, so let's use the regulatory framework that's there. Let's look at the regulations that are throughout the bill to protect the consumer and the users in this case.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I don't think we have to limit ourselves to Mr. Jenner's testimony, but we have to take into account everything which was said by small carriers. As you said a little earlier, if this amendment is adopted, it would change the thrust of the act.
That would indeed be the case. It would let people who otherwise don't have a say to carry more weight in an organization... It would not change the entire act, but would give a moral weight, a larger presence to people who would otherwise be excluded by the act and who, in any case, will be penalized by the act if it is not amended. The Bloc québécois would like to give a voice to those people.
.1050
[English]
Mr. Keyes: I disagree with the member's premise that there is no opportunity for these individuals to have a voice or a concern, be it advisory or be it representation to NAV CANADA. I wholeheartedly disagree with the premise of the member's suggestion. To be here three-quarters of the way through a bill at clause 57 and say let's just forget about all the work that's been done and go back at this hour is, quite frankly, an order I'm not interested being a part of.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keyes.
Shall we bring this to a vote, gentlemen?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I would like a recorded vote.
[English]
The Chairman: All right. There will be a recorded vote on new clauses 57.1 to 57.3, as outlined in Bloc amendment 15.1.
Amendment negatived: yeas 2; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 57 agreed to
The Chairman: Shall clauses 58 through 72 carry? I note no amendments to that block, although there are new clauses to 72 to come up next.
Yes, Mr. Comuzzi.
Mr. Comuzzi (Thunder Bay - Nipigon): Mr. Chairman, as you're aware, throughout the process I was always concerned about the process whereby we should try to arrive at some form of labour peace once this corporation and this new union commenced operations. There was a proposal by my colleague that there should be some final offer of arbitration, which I thought for a minute I would entertain, but there must be some better way in which to guarantee the rights of those people who are not at the table and who we represent, the Canadian people.
One of the scary aspects of this act is that we could paralyse the air system in Canada without any forum within this legislation to protect it, other than the normal process of intervention by the House of Commons to bring everybody back to work. We should try to avoid that. Over the years we've experienced the penalties and the problems that arise because of what we've done in that process with the railways in this country, and we should attempt not to do it again.
I see that this problem hasn't been addressed, and under subclause 63(13) we should consider some form of an amendment, although it's not binding arbitration. There should be some form of an interest arbitration whereby there would be a period of labour peace over an extended period of time. I'm thinking of maybe a 10-year period of time, at which point there should be interest arbitration to guarantee the rights of both sides during that hiatus until this section of the act should become proclaimed. So I oppose subclause 63(13).
The Chairman: Perhaps to facilitate this, shall clauses 58, 59, 60, 61, and 62 carry?
Clauses 58 to 62 inclusive agreed to.
.1055
On clause 63 - Expired collective agreements or arbitral awards
The Chairman: Now, Mr. Comuzzi, do you wish to propose an amendment to 63?
Mr. Comuzzi: I want to preserve my rights, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps you could explain to me what my rights are to preserve those concerns I have.
The Chairman: Mr. Comuzzi, just before you entered the room for this bill, Mr. Gouk made a very clear statement on precisely the issue you're addressing. I think it was a given or an understanding between us that the rights you speak of are very important. Clearly it's the air travellers, the Canadians who will be boarding these planes, as enunciated by Mr. Gouk, who have to be protected in the event of a strike, etc.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Jim, but I think we came to an understanding that the appropriate venue for that kind of protection would not necessarily be in this bill, because to impose it in this bill would be to become mode specific; that is, we would address the situation only on air navigation. We didn't do it in CN and we didn't do it in other modes.
So to address the concern you have, it would be done through an amendment to the Canada Labour Code. Alfonso Gagliano, the minister, is now going through that bill and striking amendments to the CLC. That amendment could be put forward in that form, so the protection is built in not just on the air side but also on the rail side, also on the marine side, also on the side of any other modes of transportation where the situation you speak of would become a problem.
Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify that while I'm not disagreeing with what Mr. Keyes says, I did not drop this issue because it is being investigated by the labour department. That may be a solution.
Mr. Keyes: No, I understand that.
Mr. Gouk: For Mr. Comuzzi's clarification, I dropped it because I did a lot of consultation on this, and although there was a lot of support for the position I'd taken on putting something specific in the bill, there was some opposition and some good points were raised. I think further consultation is necessary. It's premature to do it at this time. It may be proper that what I propose be done at a later time without regard to mode, but it would be premature to bring it forward at this time.
It may ultimately be settled through an amendment to the Labour Code. Certainly that would be a resolution. But it's not necessarily the reason I've not put it forward at this time.
The Chairman: Mr. Comuzzi, I'm informed by the clerk that you have the right, if you want to propose an amendment at this time. Should you not wish to do so at this time, you also have the right to propose one at the report stage of the bill.
Mr. Comuzzi: I just want to preserve my rights, Mr. Chairman, on this particular issue, inasmuch as I've expressed throughout these hearings that - and I'm not taking exception to what both sides of the bargaining table propose through subclause 63.(13) - that I think there's a better way of doing it. I'd like to put my mind to that, with some consultation, as long as my right is preserved to make a proper presentation in the House of Commons.
The Chairman: That would be a representation or an amendment at the report stage of the bill?
Mr. Comuzzi: Yes.
Mr. Comuzzi: I'll oppose clause 63.
The Chairman: It's a little hard to say ``on division'' when you're on the government side.
Mr. Comuzzi: Or I can abstain. It doesn't matter. Don't let me cause any more problems.
The Chairman: What we will note for the record is that Mr. Comuzzi has abstained from supporting clause 63.
Clauses 63 to 72 inclusive agreed to
The Chairman: Now I have notice of the proposed new clauses 72.1 to 72.6, BQ 16 on page 42.
.1100
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to make sure that officials who wish to denounce NAV CANADA for activities which may compromise public health, security and the environment are protected.
Since the bill contains provisions for airline quality and safety, some people may want to denounce airports which are lacking in those regards, so we need to adopt sections to avoid any potential labour relations conflict.
The purpose of this action is therefore to provide a framework for whistle blowers. Besides, under this section, the minister may reject denunciations. This type of section is cropping up with increasing frequency because it lets the workers involved participate more in flight safety.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: I will make just a short statement.
None of the witnesses that came before us wanted it, and quite frankly Transport Canada isn't dependent on whistle-blowers to regulate safety.
Mr. Gouk: Maybe I can get a further clarification from the proposer of this.
As I read this - and I am going through it rather quickly - if I understand this right, even if an employee puts in a complaint that is considered to be trivial or vexatious or that contains knowingly false statements, there should still be no action against an employee for doing so. Is that in fact what I'm reading in this amendment, that someone could bring forward something full of statements known to be false but no action against that employee for doing such a thing would be allowed?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The new Section 72.4 stipulates that:
72.4 (1) If the minister is of the opinion that the matter reported
b) has not and is not likely to result in the commission of a wrongful act, or
c) was not made in good faith,
So the minister may reject a denunciation if it was not made in good faith. Then it says:
(2) A report is not made in bad faith solely on the grounds that it is based on mistaken facts.
This means that a person can make a denunciation in good faith based on a factual mistake, and this action would not necessarily be seen as having been made in bad faith. The section allows the minister to reject a denunciation if he believes it was not made in good faith. Therefore, this eliminates all the frivolous cases you were alluding to.
[English]
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clauses 73 to 95 inclusive agreed to
The Chairman: I have notice of a new clause 95.1 in amendment BQ-17, which is on page 47 of your large package.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: This amendment is not quite the same as the one which required that the minister table the list of assets sold, leased or otherwise transferred to NAV CANADA during the first year, and which stated that it could also be repeated in subsequent years. The argument is on that amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: Are you wishing to move this amendment, Mr. Crête?
Mr. Crête: Oui.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 96 agreed to
.1105
The Chairman: Perhaps I could call upon Mr. Gouk. I see an amendment here, amendment R-1. With the support of the committee, I suspect a little variety would be in order here.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Chairman, I will submit my amendment identified as R-1, that Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 39, on page 45, the following new clause, under the heading Privacy Act and with the marginal notation Application of the Act:
- 96.(1) The Privacy Act applies to the Corporation as if it were a federal institution.
The only comment I have heard - to try to dissuade me from this - is that NAV CANADA will essentially act to guard this information in any case. But I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if NAV CANADA is prepared to do what this clause would require them to do, this simply gives peace of mind to untold hundreds of thousands of people who will be affected by this. It simply means that it will in fact be followed and that it is a proper regulation to put in place. It is something they're entitled to now and should be entitled to under a private corporation. This will simply ensure that information that should be held confidential by the corporation will in fact be confidential.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that the Privacy Act does not apply to any private sector entity. Quite frankly, to subject this bill to some kind of test case for the Privacy Commission befuddles me. Quite frankly, as was suggested - I think it was by me, in fact, to Mr. Phillips, who appeared before us - I found it curious that he should decide to delve into his suggestion with this particular bill, and not revisit his own act in order to provide for an amendment in his own act that would apply to these kinds of situations. I think he turned red and that was the end of the meeting.
The Chairman: Monsieur Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I think this is an important amendment.
I would like to compare the situation with that of Canada Post. It's more or less the same type of relationships. Try to get information out of Canada Post, or information regarding appointments of people who manage the organization. Airline safety is a very sensitive business. Some people may want some explanations. We are not creating a completely privatized corporation. This organization will be a creation of Parliament and it will operate in an extremely important sector which may be subject to all kinds of enquiries. Therefore, the public should have a say in the matter.
Let me remind you that NAV CANADA is subject to the Official Languages Act. In my opinion, the federal government should take the same approach to privacy as it does to official languages, so that the people involved will have an equal voice in decision-making and in any enquiries taking place in this area.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk, then Mr. Mercier, and then Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Gouk: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of points. First, Mr. Keyes suggested that - I don't know now if he was suggesting that he specifically asked the question of the privacy commissioner or not, but the question was asked, and I asked it - if this is such a concern, why would he not try to get the entire Privacy Act amended? He stated, and I'm paraphrasing because I don't have the quote in front of me, that it was certainly a good idea that should be followed up, but that this problem is now, can be dealt with now, and consequently should be.
.1110
Mr. Keyes says this is the private sector and wonders why we are picking on this particular entity. I would suggest that this is a substantially more unique situation than a general private sector situation.
First of all, it is a monopoly, which in itself is not unique in the private sector; there are a number of monopolies. However, this particular one was created by taking something that the government was specifically responsible for - and these privacy concerns were there - and transferring it to the private sector. Even in that, it is unique because it is not the normal private sector. It is a not-for-profit corporation, which I assure you is not the intent of most of the private sector, although in reality it sometimes happens.
I think this is in order. People who are affected, the users of the system, are entitled. We talk about levels of service and all the things they're entitled to, but this is something that was overlooked by all. This is something the users are entitled to. It's not just the employees and a bit of privacy for the employees. It was pointed out by the Privacy Commissioner and it is valid.
All the users of the system file information with the provider of the service, which is soon to become NAV CANADA. They are filing information that has not previously ever been available to the public and should not be. That was the position of the privacy commissioner, and I agree very strongly with that.
In talking with NAV CANADA they do not disagree with that either, but simply say they do intend to respect the privacy of users and employees. Well, this will ensure that in fact it's done. The government has an obligation as a regulatory agent in this transaction and onward, and I think this is part of that responsibility.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gouk. Mr. Mercier.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Mr. Chairman, it is a private corporation providing a public service. It doesn't make sense for the corporation not to be subject to the law when it is providing the same services the government used to.
It reminds me of another creation of the federal government, the Montreal Airport Authority. It is an organization which has the power to make decisions affecting an entire area and even the entire province of Quebec. But because it was given a certain structure by the federal government, the corporation would not be accountable. For instance, when people have made requests under the Access to Information Act for studies which the Airport Authority based its decisions on, they came up empty handed.
It doesn't make sense that the federal government should create a corporation which does not fulfil its democratic obligations. When Mr. Phillips testified, he was told that the agreement signed between the government and NAV CANADA contained the necessary provisions, but that was not the case.
I insist, as did my colleagues, that this amendment is extremely important.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Mercier. Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly agree with most of what the opposition members have said on this particular issue. The whole provision of the privacy between the two parties is a concern.
I would disagree with what Mr. Gouk has said. He said specifically that he believes this was something that was overlooked. Quite frankly, the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner were known to both Transport Canada and NAV CANADA. As a result, the contractual agreement that took place between the two parties addressed certain privacy issues. In fact, there was agreement reached vis-à-vis certain provisions of the Privacy Act.
Having addressed that, I would just move on to say, contrary to what Mr. Gouk is saying, that I'm not picking on anybody here and I'm not picking on NAV CAN as opposed to anyone else. Certainly we would want to move ahead with some order in good government. Order would say to me let's find the correct venue, as we are going to do with the Canada Labour Code amendment vis-à-vis the right to strike and final offer arbitration, etc.
In this particular instance, let's not get mode-specific. Let's not get piecemeal when it comes to addressing the issues of the Privacy Act with the private sector. Let's get the appropriate venue for this particular issue. The appropriate venue is an amendment to the Privacy Act, not to address this bill today.
.1115
Maybe members of the next committee doing some other thing are going to forget to include it in their particular bill, but then the bill, after that, will have something in it vis-à-vis the Privacy Act. Let's make sure we have the appropriate venue so that application applies to all legislation coming down the pike, not just this bill today, maybe not the next one and maybe the one after that.
For those reasons and because of the fact that this issue was addressed by both parties, I would reject this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk.
Mr. Gouk: I would comment that this is not normal legislation that deals with any number of different modes. This is a specific one for a unique act, an act to create a not-for-profit corporation. It has not been done before. I know of no plan to do it in the future. It's a not-for-profit private corporation. The government may have some intent down the road, but I'm not aware of it.
It is an obligation on the part of the government right now, as the specific provider of this service. In transferring it to a new concept, a not-for-profit corporation, they have certain obligations. They have met many of them in the bill, but they have not met this one. Further changes to the Privacy Act in general may or may not be coming forward in the future, but I believe there is an obligation on the part of the government in this specific piece of legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Let me add that we are not arguing that one Crown corporation should be submitted to the same rules as all the others. We are dealing with a very specific new corporation which is different from the others. This is an extremely important sector and I believe it is essential that the public should have access to information and that the economic health of the organization be ensured.
That's why I believe the government is not taking a strong enough position, since we are not dealing with a Crown corporation that falls under the existing act, but with a new corporation with a very specific mandate.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Mercier.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to what Mr. Keyes said, which is that the Privacy Act should be amended so the change has a larger scope. In the bill, we say that the Official Languages Act should apply to the corporation as if it were a federal institution. So I would like to ask Mr. Keyes the following: why doesn't he say that, in this case, it is the Official Languages Act that should be amended?
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: No, no, I'm paying attention, but I have translation too, Mr. Mercier. Speak slowly.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Keyes: The Privacy Act, as we know it, does not apply to any private sector entity. NAV CANADA is becoming a not-for-profit private sector entity. The Official Languages Act does apply, and we can't stress enough the importance of ensuring that the Official Languages Act applies, because of the very nature of what Canada is and the very nature of the equality of the two languages in our country.
So where we want to ensure that the Official Languages Act has precedence, we also want to ensure that if we're going to do something broad on Privacy Act legislation, let's do it with the Privacy Act. From the day the legislation on the Privacy Act would kick in, of course it would apply to an organization like NAV CANADA.
The Chairman: Are there any further questions or comments?
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: I would like a recorded vote.
[English]
The Chairman: There is a recorded division on new clause 96.1. It's the Reform motion listed in your package as R-1, which I should note for the record is identical to BQ motion 17.1. I understand the vote on the one would negate the need to proceed with the other one.
.1120
Amendment agreed to: yeas 4; nays 3
Mr. Jordan: Mr. Chairman, I just want a point of clarification. Was the vote tied?
The Chairman: No, the vote was not tied. The vote was four in favour and three opposed.
Mr. Jordan: We three and yourself. Aren't you going to support the nays?
The Chairman: I only get to vote to break a tie, but there was no tie. There were four in favour of the motion and three opposed to the motion; therefore the motion is carried.
Shall new clause 96.1 carry as amended?
Mr. Gouk: Being a new clause, isn't it automatically carried? It's simply in there, and that's it.
The Chairman: Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me, you're absolutely right.
On clause 97 - Authority to provide services
The Chairman: Moving to clause 97, I note we have a government amendment, G-4.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, if I might, I move that clause 97 of Bill C-20 be amended by striking out the heading before clause 97 on page 46 and lines 1 to 8 on page 46 and substituting the following under the heading Authority to Provide Services....
Clause 97, Mr. Chairman, is intended to enable government organizations to provide NAV CANADA with the kinds of services they are authorized to provide to other government bodies. The proposed amendment would overcome a deficiency, Mr. Chair, where the current wording would not allow a government department that does not officially have a minister to continue providing services to NAV CANADA. For example, the Public Service Commission could not continue to provide language testing for employees. For that reason, we propose this amendment.
Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 97 as amended agreed to on division
Clauses 98 to 100 inclusive agreed to
On clause 101
The Chairman: I have notice of amendment BQ-18, which is on page 53 of your large package.
Mr. Crête.
.1125
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure not only that the Governor in Council may, by way of regulation, authorize the minister to issue an order instruction the corporation to maintain the same level of air navigation services, but also that the minister do so only after consulting with the Standing Committee of the House of Commons which normally considers transportation related issues.
Our aim is therefore to make the decision-making process more democratic and to give the parliamentary committee a say in decisions affecting the maintenance, or increase, in civilian air navigation services. These are important factors. We believe the amendment should be adopted because, through the committee, the government and the opposition would be involved in the process.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: It is the same as the principle put forward before, and there is the same answer from our side on the principle of a House of Commons committee establishing the precedents to review matters.
The Chairman: BQ amendment 18 to clause 101 has been proposed by Mr. Crête.
Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 101 agreed to on division
Clauses 102 to 106 inclusive agreed to
The Chairman: I have a new clause, clause 106.1, proposed by BQ amendment 18.1.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Mr. Chairman, I move that the bill be amended by adding after line 18, on page 49, the following new clause:
- L.R., ch. P-21
- Privacy Act
- NAV CANADA Corporation
This amendment is the logical extension of the amendment proposed by both parties, and which was adopted. It only makes sense to adopt this one as well.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: If we're going to go with consistency, the suggestion made by the Bloc is that the schedule to the Privacy Act be amended by adding the following, in alphabetical order, under the heading ``Other Government Institutions''.... NAV CANADA is not a government institution.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: It is an institution established by the federal government. We've already passed a clause that would make NAV CANADA subject to the Privacy Act. To be logical, we would have to mention NAV CANADA in this list, otherwise, there will be a legal vacuum. On the one hand, we would have stated in the Act that the institution is subject to the Privacy Act, while on the other hand, the institution would not be mentioned in the other legislation. This is just a consequential amendment. The vote that was held on this is important, and we have to be logical here. We could ask for an opinion from any legal counsel on this matter. Clearly, we should apply the same logic.
[English]
Mr. Gouk: I would be inclined to go with what Mr. Keyes has said, that it is in fact not a government institution. The clause as passed has weight without that being added - subject to anybody denying that. I point out that the clause that was passed refers to it as if it were a federal institution. It clearly is not; therefore, if the amendment were to be in order, there should be a new section other than government institutions. It should be ``and the following private corporations'', and then listed in that way - if that were to be in order.
Mr. Keyes: If I understand it correctly, as it sits now it is not applicable and therefore... The government didn't create NAV CANADA, so it's not another, or autre, government institution.
.1130
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: For greater clarity, we could move a sub-amendment to the amendment. Rather than saying:
- ...``under the heading "Other government institutions'', we could say:
- Under a new heading, ``other institutions'':
- NAV CANADA Corporation
[English]
Mr. Gouk: At least we'll be in order.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: And if other committees come up with such good ideas as ours later on, they could just add the names of the other corporations that should be included. I ask the question to determine whether this proposal would solve the technical problem from the government's point of view. The important thing is that the corporation will be subject to the Privacy Act.
[English]
The Chairman: Further questions or comment?
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I voted against the idea of the Privacy Act, so I would vote against this as well.
The Chairman: The perception of a great idea is in the eye of the beholder.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, once an amendment is carried, even if a person voted against it, we have to ensure that we have the best possible bill. I made this suggestion to see whether we might reach an agreement to avoid any legal action from NAV CANADA. It could say that the federal government did not have to include it in such a list, because it is not a government institution. The committee's job is to try to find a solution to the problem, and I would like to know whether my suggestion might be acceptable.
[English]
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I think what we have to keep in mind here is that once we've completed our work here, the chairman reports the bill to the House of Commons, where it sits at report stage, in the House. To presume there wouldn't be any changes to this bill of any kind between this moment and third reading, before it goes to the Senate, is a huge assumption. I voted against the Privacy Act motion by the Bloc, or Reform, earlier, so I will vote against this particular amendment. We'll see what happens after the bill is reported to the House.
The Chairman: Mr. Gouk, did you have further comment on this?
Mr. Gouk: It's interesting to find myself having to mix back and forth between whether I'm supporting Mr. Keyes or rejecting him at any given moment. In this particular case I would put Mr. Mercier's argument back to him and suggest that if he wasn't concerned that we amend the Official Languages Act - he feels it does apply without amending the Official Languages Act - then we should have the same level of comfort with the Privacy Act.
Put it this way: I will not be surprised if there were an amendment of deletion from the government at report stage on some aspects of this bill -
The Chairman: You're presuming it goes to the House.
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: I declare the motion negatived, and therefore Reform motion 2 also, since they are identical.
On clause 107 - Conditional amendment
Mr. Keyes: I move that clause 107 of Bill C-20 be amended by striking out lines 19 to 25 on page 49 and substituting the following....
Do you all have a record of that? I don't have to read through it. It's as produced.
Bill C-20 was drafted on the basis of the long title of the Regulations Act that was introduced in the first session of the 35th Parliament. When the Regulations Act was introduced in the second session of the 35th Parliament, as Bill C-25, there was a change in its long title, so the motion is necessary to reflect the revised title.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 107 as amended agreed to
.1135
On clause 108 - Conditional amendment
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, as indicated on page 58 in the book provided to all members, I move that clause 108 of Bill C-20 be amended.... There is a substantive amount of material there and a substantive amount of numbers. I would move it -
The Chairman: As presented?
Mr. Keyes: - as presented on the paper -
The Chairman: Is there any rationale?
Mr. Keyes: - because clause 108 of Bill C-20 identifies the sections of the Canada Transportation Act, Bill C-14, that would not be applicable in respect of appeals on user charges. The motion is intended to reflect all the renumbering.
Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Clause 108 as amended agreed to
The Chairman: Now we shall return to clause 1, which when we started we put off till the end. I have notice of a Bloc amendment, BQ-19.
Excuse me; I am in error here. I misread that. The preamble is separate from clause 1, so I'll call clause 1 first and then move to the amendment with the introduction of the preamble.
Clause 1 agreed to on division
The Chairman: There is a proposal by the Bloc for a preamble. It's BQ amendment 19 on page 60 of your package.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: The objective of the preamble is to include a reference to the discussions we had during the hearings. We're talking about a system in which everything with respect to a private corporation depends on the government. There are some things that we should guarantee in this movement of the pendulum.
The objective, as set out in the preamble is:
- whereas the safety of passengers, personnel, air carriers and the public has priority over all other
considerations in the business decisions taken by NAV CANADA; and
Another clause of the preamble that we would suggest is one that would ensure equality of opportunity for small and large carriers in establishing its charges. Since, because of the structure of the legislation, small carriers have less say, they are less successful in getting their views accepted by various levels of authority. We think we need to move the pendulum back the other way, and set out such a principle in the preamble.
There is also a reference to the fact that because of its unique geography, Canada requires an air service to northern and remote regions.
The next clause of the preamble refers to the issue of jobs and the use of French. In both cases, it is important to guarantee services of adequate quality and to have a philosophy that will maximize the number of jobs.
The objective of the preamble as a whole is to ensure that we retain some positive elements, because they came directly under government authority. However, in addition, it must be understood that there are some criteria for improving the efficiency of air navigation services. We know that the bill will make a number of things possible in this regard, but we must not lose the essential, positive features that existed in the former system. That is the objective of the preamble we are proposing.
[English]
Mr. Gouk: While there are some aspects of this that maybe I could go along with, there are two that I shall cite because they are specifically contrary to good public interest or the act intended by this.
One of these is to place upon NAV CANADA an objective to maintain existing jobs and to create new jobs as one of its primary objectives. It is not. It is a private corporation. I hope that it will in fact maintain, and even create, jobs, but that should not be a required objective. It may in fact be necessary for them to rationalize, as many other businesses and organizations have done.
The second thing I will do with some hesitation. I will point out that we had quite a conflict in this country some years ago regarding the use of two languages in air traffic control. We have hundreds upon hundreds of documented cases of incidents, accidents, some resulting in death, in which the specific circumstance leading to the accident was the use of more than one language at a given time.
.1140
Because of situations in various countries, including Canada, where there are two languages in use, there has been an acceptance of the use of more than one language, namely the introduction of French in air traffic control in Quebec and in the capital region. But to specifically make an objective to promote the extension of that to other parts of the country has with it certain risks that cannot begin to be addressed in its preamble and should not be moved into arbitrarily, which is what would be done if we adopted this preamble.
Mr. Keyes: I'll only add this. It's a given that the legal effect of any preamble is to assist in the interpretation of other sections of the legislation. The legislation already deals with all the points put forward, except the aspect of the maintenance and creation of jobs. Mr. Gouk has already eloquently dealt with that situation.
As far as this statement on French language, it is unnecessary, because clause 96 says that NAV CANADA is subject to the Official Languages Act and article XX of the NAV CANADA by-laws.
For these reasons, we would reject the amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a separate vote on each paragraph. Is that in order?
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Crête, I'm informed that it's not in order; it's one motion. It would require a series of subamendments or separate motions.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: So all we can do is move a sub-amendment. Is that possible?
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, you may propose a subamendment to your motion.
Mr. Gouk: Or at report stage.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Thank you.
I request a recorded vote.
[English]
Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Shall I report the bill to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Just a reminder that we'll meet on Thursday morning at nine o'clock. We have the minister for the first hour, so I would encourage members to be here at nine sharp. We will have a brief meeting on the business of the committee following the estimates.
The meeting is adjourned.