TRAN Committee Meeting

    We'll call our meeting to order.

    As everyone knows, we're going through clause-by-clause study on Bill C-3.

    First of all, I want to thank our witnesses who are here from the department. There may be some interchanging at some point, depending on the topic. We have some people here from the aeronautics industry as well.

    Accordingly, if anybody has questions and we need to bring somebody to the table, feel free to do that at any time.

    Could they introduce themselves?

    Yes, we can certainly do that.

    Mr. McGuinty has asked that you introduce yourselves.

    I'm John Thachet, from the Department of Justice, with the Transport Canada legal services.

    I'm David Reble, from Transport Canada, airports and air navigation services policy.

    I'm Dave Dawson, also from Transport Canada, airport policy group.

    Thank you, gentlemen.

    First I'm going to propose that we group clauses 2 to 18 together just to make the best use of our time. If any of the committee members have an issue with any clause in that group, make me aware of it and we'll stop at that point, have the debate on it, and go forward from there.

    Is everyone good with that?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Mr. Mai.

    Could I speak to clause 15?

    Clause 15, that's noted.

    Clause 1 is postponed until the end.

    (Clauses 2 to 14 inclusive agreed to)

    (On clause 15)

    The Chair: Mr. Mai, I understand you want to speak to clause 15.

    I want to speak to clauses 15 and 16.

    We made an amendment that was refused because it went against what the bill was. Maybe I could get some clarification from the officials.

    By the way, thank you very much for joining us again today to explain things to us and, above all, answer our questions.

    What I gather from clauses 15 and 16 is that they are removing the minister's discretion to request a board of inquiry when a problem occurs in the system.

    Can you tell us why those sections of the act were repealed and why that power was taken away from the minister?

    If I might, wouldn't the removal of clauses be an issue for the clerk, not witnesses, if you will?

    Yes, but the reason I'm asking is just to have more information.

    You're asking them why the clauses were removed. It's a question for the clerk.

    No, no. The effect of Bill C-3, clauses 15 and 16, is they're deleting some sections of the previous bill. I'm just asking about that amendment, about why are we repealing. It's on the amendment, but it's more on the bill.

    Fair enough. I appreciate that.

    Who wants to respond to that?

    We'll respond to that.

    I'm Alex Weatherston, from the Department of Justice, and I've been supporting the air force with the legal side of this bill.

    That's a good question.

    Currently, there is the power to convene a board of inquiry under this act. It goes into the Inquiries Act. As Mr. Armour mentioned last time we were here, there have been incidents where we have been close to doing that, to obtain that legal authority.

    With the powers in part II of the Aeronautics Act, we no longer need that power in part I. That's why it's being deleted.

    The other section that's being repealed deals with privileges, and likewise, all those privileges, which are being incorporated right now under the CTAISB Act into the air force activities, are also now found in part II of the Aeronautics Act amendments.

    So that authority still exists, but in another part of the legislation. Is that correct?

    Exactly. That power currently exists and is no longer required once we have our amendments in the Aeronautics Act.

    Thank you kindly.

    Is there any further discussion on clauses 15 or 16?

    (Clauses 15 to 18 inclusive agreed to)

    The Chair: We'll now move to clause 19.

    I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. There was a mistake in our amendments. Amendment NDP-1 was with respect to clause 18. I would—

    No, that's right.

    It's right?

    I'm sorry. My apologies. Let's go to clause 19.

    (On clause 19)

    We're on amendment NDP-1. Mr. Mai.

    The idea behind the amendment is to ensure that the reports are made public.

    Don't forget that one of the witnesses who appeared before the committee was Colonel Steve Charpentier, from the Department of National Defence. He told us how important it was for the department to ensure that the reports were made public.

    The whole point was to ensure that information was shared and that certain agencies could see the reports. It used to be the Transportation Safety Board of Canada that did the reporting when a civilian-related accident occurred, and those reports were made public, as everyone knows.

    Under clause 19 of the bill, the reports would be confidential and therefore would not be released to the public. The purpose of amendment NDP-1 is to ensure that the reports are made public. That follows through on what Colonel Charpentier told the committee about the Department of National Defence itself making the reports public. We wanted to make sure that was clearly stated in the bill.

    Thank you, Mr. Mai.

    Is there any further discussion on amendment NDP-1?

    Maybe I could add—

    Mr. Chair, my apologies, but we don't have a copy of the amendment before us. Is there a chance that we could see it?

    While this is being done, in the future, Mr. Mai, or anybody else on the committee, if there's an amendment and you expect an answer to it, maybe you could get the information to the witnesses. We would make better use of our time. That's all.

    Sure. Well, we did send it to the clerk, so we were wondering if those amendments would be.... They were sent before today.

    Okay.

    The amendments were provided to the members of the committee only.

    Yes, but it wouldn't go to anybody who might appear here.

    We'll know next time. My apologies.

    Okay.

    Mr. Mai.

    Maybe I could read it just to make sure that it's what was sent.

    The amendment reads as follows:

    The point is really to have the report made public once the minister has received it.

    Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

    Mr. McGuinty.

     Mr. Chair, are the witnesses going to give us some insight on this?

    Well, it hasn't been indicated to me.

    I'd like to add my voice to hear how they respond to this notion of making public the report.

    Okay.

    Just in our brief discussion in the chance that we've had to take a look at this.... This obviously is a statutory requirement, which the minister is presently doing on an administrative basis. That's our only observation. It just statutorily makes the administrative process that we now have in place statutory. It becomes statutory. That's our only observation on it.

    There's the added dimension, Jim, that in the context of the military, there are flight investigation reports that have confidential and classified material in them that the minister and Jim's staff here have to analyze and review before the process occurs and the report is put up on the public websites.

    A report that would go to the minister might have to be amended, if you understand what we're saying, for security or operational reasons, and that's just information that might be used contrary to the best interests of the Canadian Forces in their operations.

    This would have to certainly reflect that that would be a possibility opposed to an unamended report. A report may be amended for security purposes, but the minister would still, if this was going to happen, have to publish a report that would be amended for operation or security purposes.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Watson.

    Chair, to clarify, the amendment as it's written would compel a report with all information to be immediately published. Is that correct?

    That's what we would read that as.

    I just want to make sure I understand correctly. We already know that, practically speaking, many reports are censored; portions are removed for security reasons. Wouldn't that happen in this case as well? If a report being made public contained information about national defence or security that should be kept confidential, wouldn't that information be removed or blacked out automatically?

    In fact, the new section 19 reads as follows: “The Authority shall, on a confidential basis, provide an interim report....” So the element of confidentiality is already built in. We asked the Department of National Defence about the issue of information deemed to be confidential or to involve public safety. The government already has the power to keep some of the information confidential.

    In this case, wouldn't it simply be a matter of saying where the preliminary investigation stands? I would remind the committee that when Colonel—

    Is there a response or comment?

    The only thing that I think there is some reticence about is if there's information in there that also might compromise an ally or something of that nature, or if there's information in it that would be proprietary in nature. In order to understand what had actually occurred, we may have to discuss proprietary information, and that also might require some editing, or not publishing those sections of the report.

    We haven't really had to do this yet, but when we're looking forward at the possibility of that occurring, we have considered all of these things, so as we prepare a report and pass it to the minister, one of the things that we always bear in mind is those issues. At this point we haven't had to amend a report, as we publish them publicly on the website through our administrative process, but we certainly wouldn't want to be statutorily obligated to make a report that we've made to the minister word for word available in a published format.

    Thank you very much. I think we're very clear on that.

    I'm going to call the vote.

    (Amendment negatived)

    The Chair: We now move on to amendment NDP-2.

    Mr. Mai.

    No, I won't be moving NDP-2. We'll be moving amendment NDP-3

    Then we'll move on to amendment NDP-3.

    Mr. Mai.

    This amendment is based on the same principle regarding public reporting. I'll read it quickly:

    Again, this speaks to how important the issue is right now. The Transportation Safety Board of Canada makes all reports public. It's a matter of Canadians' confidence in the processes and steps undertaken by the government. Similarly, that is why we want reports to be made public.

    Is there any further discussion on amendment NDP-3?

    Mr. Chair, we make the comment also here that this proposed amendment is not consistent with the CTAISB Act legislation. They're under no obligation to publish their interim reports like this.

    Thank you.

    I'm going to call the vote.

    (Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: We're now going to vote on clause 19.

    (Clause 19 agreed to)

    (Clauses 20 to 22 inclusive agreed to)

    (On clause 23)

    The Chair: We have amendment NDP-4.

    Mr. Mai.

    I will read amendment NDP-4. I assume the officials have received the amendments.

    Just to clarify, amendments cannot be distributed to the public until they've been tabled here, and I should have known that.

    Go ahead and read it. At least we'll be aware of it.

    The amendment reads as follows:

    

    

    Actually, we're removing

“take all reasonable measures”.

    The purpose is to ensure that things actually move forward with the investigation, to make sure that the Department of National Defence and the Board of Transportation Safety do more than just take all reasonable measures to coordinate the investigation.

    Are there any comments?

    As worded in the proposed amendment—the existing proposed amendment, not the suggested change—those are exactly the words that are in CTAISB. That has been imported directly from CTAISB into what our amendment is. So this would also amend CTAISB.

    A voice: That allows flexibility.

     It's being pointed out that the wording as it exists does allow flexibility. If it's hard this way, then we have no choice but to dedicate the resources to such investigations even if they don't want to participate or we don't want to participate, for whatever reason; whereas, the wording that exists does allow flexibility and give and take between the Transportation Safety Board and the AIA investigation.

    Thank you.

    Is there any further discussion on amendment NDP-4?

    I'd like a small clarification please.

    Could you give us an example of a situation in which it would cause a problem? I am really trying to understand what you said about it giving you more flexibility. Could you please explain that?

    I can give you a practical example.

    One of the things we do is investigate glider accidents. In Quebec, glider accidents are actually.... They do what's called a power pilot scholarship. They make contracts with civilian power companies that teach the kids how to actually fly, so when an accident of that nature happens, we have a vested interest in finding out a lot about it, whereas for the Transportation Safety Board, it's not a very high-profile investigation for them to dedicate resources to.

     Sometimes they have been contacted. We've told them that we're going to do an investigation, and they say they're not interested. This would sort of demand that they show up. It would really impose on them a need to investigate something that we were investigating. In reverse, it has never happened. We have never not gone to an investigation they've asked us to go to, but certainly, although they've always been notified when we're doing an investigation that would have a Transportation Safety Board connotation, occasionally the Transportation Safety Board says that it's beyond their mandate, or that they're not going to send any investigator for that.

    Very well.

    Okay. That's a good explanation of it.

    (Amendment negatived)

    (Clause 23 agreed to)

    (Clauses 24 to 41 inclusive agreed to)

    (On clause 42)

    The Chair: We have amendment NDP-5.

    Mr. Mai.

    The NDP submitted a series of requests after we heard from the Canadian Maritime Law Association.

    One of the problems we want to fix has to do with the liability limit of ship owners. We think it's beneficial to pursue this to take advantage of what the international HNS convention says. It ensures that cleanup costs are not left solely to Canadian taxpayers.

    If memory serves and if I understood what the Canadian Maritime Law Association told us, the liability of ship owners is limited to $165 million. And in situations where the damage exceeds the ship owner's liability, additional compensation may be paid out under the convention up to a maximum of $400 million. Because of the convention and its international fund, then, taxpayers do not have to assume all the cleanup costs.

    But when the bill exceeds $400 million, the party responsible for the cleanup, in other words, the government, has to assume the remainder of the bill, as was the case in Lac-Mégantic. And the problem is that when the government pays, it is really Canadian taxpayers footing the bill.

    In the case of an oil spill, cleanup costs can be in the billions. And for chemical spills, as is the case here, the cleanup costs are not yet known, but they can rise quickly, as the experts have told us.

    Given the dramatic increase in the transportation of hazardous materials, why limit the liability of private companies to $400 million? If agreed to, our amendments would allow us to go after what already exists, in other words, we would have access to a fund that oil companies paid into until 1976—or rather 1973, as my colleague just pointed out to me. What we are asking for is access to that private fund, which was set aside and never used. One witness talked about some $280 million.

    In short, what we are trying to do through our amendments is ensure that Canadian taxpayers are not on the hook for all the cleanup costs following a disaster or accident involving hazardous materials, known as HNSs, hazardous and noxious substances.

    That is the purpose of the changes we are proposing, changes that are based on what the Canadian Maritime Law Association told the committee.

    Is there any further discussion?

    Mr. Watson.

    I'll only point out for the record, Mr. Chair, that we're opposed to this.

     I asked our officials to look into the most expensive cleanup done under an HNS protocol, and it's a $60-million cleanup. We're talking about putting in place a regime that would offer—not paid by the taxpayers—up to $400 million currently, so we think the regime is sufficient.

    Also, there was the question of justice. I'm pretty sure I appreciate that the NDP would like the oil companies to pay for everything, including for chemical companies, but this would open up access to a fund paid for by the oil companies without changing the regime of who pays into the fund, and how much chemical companies would pay into the fund. Simply opening up the fund without changing the structure of who would pay into it is not sufficient either, so we're opposed to it.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Sullivan.

    I understand the government's position; however, given that the department has not yet conducted a risk assessment, it's difficult to say exactly what the risk might be. If the biggest cleanup required for HNS to date is $60 million—there's no draw-down on the fund, because the fund hasn't yet been implemented anywhere—and the department has not conducted a risk assessment, nor has the panel turned its mind to HNS yet, it is difficult for us to state categorically that $165 million is enough. The $400 million comes into play only when it's an oil spill, which then comes back to the whole discussion of oil again.

    I understand the government's reluctance to deal with this SOPF in any way other than as it applies to oil, but perhaps we can, after the fact.... If there's money available that will save the Canadian taxpayers money in the long run, then maybe we should be looking at asking the other transporters of hazardous and noxious substances to contribute to a uniquely Canadian fund, the SOPF, in other words, to provide yet another backstop. It may never be needed, but in the event that it is, I believe the taxpayers would rather we were being prudent than leaving the taxpayers open to a significant liability.

    Mr. Mai, you have the last comment.

    Yes, I'll make it quickly.

    The idea behind this is just to make sure the taxpayers don't have to pay. Right now what we're saying is that the taxpayers would pay for the cleanup, rather than the oil companies.

    It wouldn't be initiating a fund; it's a fund that already existed. It was stopped in 1973, in terms of how much money was put in. If we want to be fair, I think we should change the law, and it's Canadian law, to make sure that all HNS transporters contribute to that fund. Then we would have a fund that would make sure that Canadian taxpayers wouldn't have to pay.

    It's really hard for me to understand why the government wants to protect the oil companies rather than the Canadian taxpayers. There's a fund that already existed. It was paid up until 1973. No additional money has been put in. Right now we're saying, “Well, no, let's not use that fund,” instead of, if we want to be fair, asking the transporters to put more money into the fund. That would be better. But to say that because the maximum cleanup cost $60 million it means that we won't have more, that's not prudent, in my mind.

    (Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    (Clause 42 agreed to)

     (On clause 43)

    The Chair: We have amendment NDP-6.

    Mr. Mai.

    I don't want to waste any more of the committee's time. NDP amendments 6, 7 and 8 are all related to what we discussed. I won't repeat my explanation, but I will stress the importance of not making taxpayers pay these costs. Unfortunately, it seems that the government's preference is to make taxpayers pay instead of the companies.

    Thank you.

    (Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    (Clause 43 agreed to)

    (Clauses 44 and 45 agreed to)

    (On clause 46)

    The Chair: We have amendment NDP-7.

    Mr. Mai.

    It's the same thing, Mr. Chair.

    (Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    (Clause 46 agreed to)

    (Clauses 47 to 49 inclusive agreed to)

    (On clause 50)

    We have amendment NDP-8.

    Mr. Mai.

    It's the same thing, Mr. Chair, and I'll just ask for a recorded vote.

    Okay.

    (Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    (Clause 50 agreed to)

    (Clauses 51 to 59 inclusive agreed to)

    (On clause 60)

    The Chair: We have an amendment moved by Ms. May.

    Ms. May, welcome to the committee. You have the floor.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    As committee members will recall, I'm here based on instructions to show up at clause-by-clause study with amendments if we're concerned.

    On this bill, Bill C-3, An Act to enact the Aviation Industry Indemnity Act, to amend the Aeronautics Act, the Canada Marine Act, the Marine Liability Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, not to be cheeky about it, but I think the short title, safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act, should get some sort of prize for overblown marketing in the public relations category in future Oscars.

    It does a lot of business, like housekeeping, for which I have no concerns, relating to aviation accidents and war risks for the aeronautics industry.

    I certainly think that implementing the international convention on liability and compensation for damage in connection with the carriage of hazardous and noxious substances by sea is a good idea, but I completely support the attempts which the NDP just made to get rid of the cap on marine accidents involving oil.

    I've focused my amendments on part 5. There are three amendments, but I'll just speak briefly to—

    We're dealing with amendment PV-1 right now.

    Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair.

    What this amendment to clause 60 would do is create some public access to this information about the plans that the minister would be approving in relation to oil pollution prevention plans or oil pollution emergency plans. They are in the act now, that the minister will approve such plans, but as we understand it, none of these plans would be accessible by access to information legislation. We're suggesting in this very straightforward amendment that the minister would publish in the Canada Gazette, as well as on the Internet site of the Department of Transport, the plans that are received, and the minister would consult with the public about any of these concerns that the public might express once they had an opportunity to review the plans.

    It's merely a piece on public accessibility to information that's been prepared already. There's no additional preparation of information that's required by this section. The minister publishes the plans that have been accepted and then, if there are concerns, the minister shall consult. That's the extent of the amendment.

    Is there further discussion on the amendment?

    All those in favour of the amendment?

    Are you in favour of your amendment, Ms. May?

    Am I allowed to vote, Mr. Chair?

    The Chair: No, that's right.

    Ms. Elizabeth May: I'd like to be in favour of my amendment and I appreciate your extending my rights and privileges. Larry Miller for—

    I have to withdraw that right.

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    (Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Next is amendment PV-2, proposed by Ms. May.

    The floor is yours, Ms. May.

    Mr. Chair, again, this amendment is affecting the same line of reasoning on page 56, also in clause 60, looking at ensuring that the oil pollution prevention plans and emergency plans that are submitted pursuant to section 167.4 would also be made public by the minister in the fashion of a publication in the Canada Gazette and on the Internet site of the Department of Transport, and that, again, this would facilitate public access to this information.

    As you will know, Mr. Chair, this is an area of extreme interest to communities that live near facilities that handle the transport of oil. The pollution prevention plans and emergency plans being made public would be in the public interest. I hope that committee members will approve this amendment.

    Is there any further discussion?

    Mr. Mai.

    Could I hear from the officials what they think about the amendment?

    If anyone cares to....

    It's in terms of making things public and publishing in the Canada Gazette.

    There's a lot of consultation that would already take place within the public with our RAC system that's in place, and we were looking at possibly enhancing those bodies.

    Mr. McGuinty.

    Is there a lot of discussion with the public in advance of the preparation of the submission of these plans? Is that what you're suggesting?

    A lot of consultation with the public will be entailed previous to putting in place, not the plans themselves, but the regime for oil spill cleanup, and so on.

    The consultation would be conducted by whom?

    The consultation will take place mainly with our CMAC system that we have in place, and that's open to the public, plus our regional advisory council that is in place.

    Could I ask another question, Mr. Chair?

    Certainly.

    Are there any national security concerns that would arise if these plans were made public?

    No.

    Acts of terrorism, targets, nothing?

    Not that I know of, but it's a possibility.

    Thank you.

    (Amendment negatived)

    (Clause 60 agreed to)

    (Clauses 61 and 62 agreed to)

    (On clause 63)

    We have amendment PV-3, moved by Ms. May.

    The floor is yours, Ms. May.

    Mr. Chair, this amendment is similar, but deals with a different type of information that is collected under this act. This relates to clause 63 of the bill that deals with what in the old act was section 168. I would create a section 168.4 as an addition to what's found on page 58. You will find these terms under proposed section 168.3:

    —the minister may then take steps.

    What my amendment adds in is that when the minister becomes aware of this situation, that an oil handling facility has discharged, is discharging or is likely to discharge oil, and isn't prepared to deal with the emergency, the Minister shall prepare and make public a report in respect of those circumstances so that the community becomes aware of any incident either past or prospective or a lack of preparedness.

    It's once the minister is aware of those things. Again, this isn't an additional step. The minister is already aware of these things. It's just a question of opening it up so the public is aware of it as well.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Mai.

    I'm a bit surprised to see that the government members are voting against making the reports public. Officials from various departments have told us that it wasn't really a matter of national security.

    If we draw a parallel and look at what's happening with railway safety, we see that people are worried, that they are asking questions and that they want all the information made public. Even municipal officials don't have the information. It is clear that concern is growing.

    I have trouble wrapping my head around the fact that government members are voting against publishing the reports without even explaining why. So my question is more for the members of the government. I hope to get an answer.

    is there any further discussion on the amendment?

    (Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    (Clause 63 agreed to)

    (Clauses 64 to 79 inclusive agreed to)

    The Chair: Now we move on to the short title.

    Shall clause 1 carry?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Shall the schedule carry?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Shall the title carry?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Shall I report the bill to the House?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: That's it. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.

    To all of the departmental staff that were here, thank you very much.

    With that, the meeting is adjourned.