Bill C-6 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment deals with integrated management systems and authorizes the establishment of voluntary reporting programs under which information relating to aviation safety and security may be reported. It also authorizes the designation of industry bodies to certify persons undertaking certain aeronautical activities. Other powers are enhanced or added to improve the proper administration of the Act, in particular powers granted to certain members of the Canadian Forces to investigate aviation accidents involving both civilians and a military aircraft or aeronautical facility.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

You can't blame Bill C-6 for that.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Hold it. Bill C-6 isn't even in place.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

There has been some suggestion that this is akin to either deregulation of the industry or a move to significant self-regulation. Transport Canada officials made it very clear that this is, in fact, not self-regulation, but a significant enhancement in safety. It's ensuring that companies take ownership of safety within their operations. In fact, the audit process that is being suggested by Bill C-6 is intended to make sure that at the end of the day we actually have an enhanced system.

This is not a move backwards. It's not even the status quo. At the end of the day, the intention is for there to be improved safety within the airline industry.

Have you received any indication that the number of inspectors is going to be reduced or that the audit process is going to be less rigorous than our overall inspection program is today? Do you have any evidence to that effect?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

It's my understanding that Bill C-6 is not whistle-blower protection, but it provides confidentiality and immunity to ensure that employees who come forward with the interests of safety in mind are not penalized for that.

I wanted to touch on something else, and that is—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

It was my understanding that the confidentiality provisions and the immunity provisions of Bill C-6 are intended to ensure that when there are problems within the industry, the people on the front lines—who in many cases are the ones who first receive notification or are made aware of those problems—have an opportunity to come forward without being penalized for that action. Is that how you understand Bill C-6?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Stoss, you said in your brief that the provisions of Bill C-6 related to safety management systems are also of interest to the TSB, principally because this new approach has the potential to significantly improve the early reporting and resolution of potential and actual safety deficiencies. Would you admit that it also has the potential to have some of the perverse impacts we've seen within the railway sector?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Okay. Thank you for that.

Moving on to the airline industry, you've been very clear that you believe there are some real risks and dangers in pushing ahead with a similar type of system for airlines. Is there anything within Bill C-6 that reassures you that we might not be seeing the same impact—inadvertent as you may say—that we've seen within the railway industry?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to each of the witnesses for coming forward, particularly to you, Mr. Wing. You've given by far the best presentation we've heard yet in terms of Bill C-6.

I wanted to start by asking if your union also represents railway workers.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Very well.

Looking at your report, I see that you deal with 150 to 200 cases per year. You make findings about those cases and, if you think that a decision was not made fairly, you tell the minister.

This is what the Dubin report had contemplated. However, where I see a problem is that some designated organizations—and I am referring here to ALPA, the Airline Pilots Association—have told us that with this Bill the traditional oversight function will be changed. As far as they are concerned, it is clear that the inspectors will not do the same work as in the past because the safety management system will have them work more as auditors than inspectors.

This is a concern to me because of the whole balanced system that had been recommended by Justice Dubin—I am trying to understand why some people are so intent on the changing the inspection system and I can't find any good reasons related to safety. As far as labor relations are concerned, since they are overseen by inspectors, I can understand why airline pilots would not like to be overseen by other pilots who are inspectors. I can see that there is a human relations issue here. However, for matters of safety, I fail to understand why the government wants to change the system.

I have no objection to adding a safety management system as long as we keep an inspection system that is as good as the one we have now, as well as inspectors who have received the same training and who are able to go anywhere to inspect the airlines.

It is difficult for me to accept that the inspection system should change. If that were to happen, would you have any concerns?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Under Bill C-6, you would lose that authority in that section, correct?

[Faye Smith]

If I understand the bill correctly, Bill C-6 will remove that with respect to section 7, which is a suspension for immediate threat. The one that is being changed is section 7. But there is a refer-back—

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

So it's a neutral perspective. Thank you.

Madam Smith, I have a couple of questions, if I may. My understanding is that currently the act, under which you have authority, allows the tribunal to substitute its own decisions for those of the minister. Bill C-6 would remove that authority. First of all, is my understanding accurate here?

[Nick Stoss]

Thank you very much for your question.

The current provisions of the CTAISB Act actually have provisions with regard to the Minister of National Defence conducting investigations. These amendments to Bill C-6 will not affect that provision within the CTAISB Act. Again, the concept of part II of the new Bill C-6 is to provide an enhanced capability to conduct investigations into those military accidents and incidents that involve civilians.

Because this particular provision in the act will not have any effect on the TSB's operations and investigations, I don't have an opinion with regard to the viability of the provisions of Bill C-6 in that regard.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first question is for Mr. Stoss. In your comments you highlighted the areas that Bill C-6 would cause to be changed. In most of them you indicate clear support—for instance, in the matter of the voluntary non-punitive reporting system and in the matter of the management systems and so forth. But in the first one you highlighted, that the act will provide the Department of National Defence with legislation and so forth, your view is perhaps not as clear.

Would you comment on whether you favour this particular amendment or if you have any reservations on this one?

[Michael Wing, National President, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to participate in the deliberations on Bill C-6, amendments to the Aeronautics Act.

As we all know, this bill has been around for quite a while, and Transport Canada has in effect been acting as if the legislation were already in place. If you sense a degree of frustration in my voice, you're probably reading me correctly.

The Union of Canadian Transportation Employees represents the vast majority of inspectors who are responsible for ensuring that Canada's airlines and airports are safe and the rules are obeyed. UCTE members are fulfilling the obligations of the government as embodied in the responsibilities of the Minister of Transport, as clearly articulated in the Aeronautics Act. In section 4.2 of the act, the responsibilities of the minister are clearly laid out in more than a page of dense print. Section 4.2 begins as follows:

The Minister is responsible for the development and regulation of aeronautics and the supervision of all matters connected with aeronautics

There are about 12 specific functions identified following these general obligations, but the two I would like to emphasize are to “investigate, examine and report on the operation and development of commercial air services in, to or from Canada”; and “investigate matters concerning aviation safety”.

So the minister clearly has the responsibility for regulation, supervision, investigation, and reporting of all aviation matters in Canada. UCTE members perform these functions and are accountable to the minister and the government for the discharge of these responsibilities.

The question I would ask, and that you as legislators must carefully consider, is whether the responsibilities of the minister are discharged appropriately and in the public interest through the designation process, through the management system delegation process, and through the disclosure and confidentiality waivers that are the cornerstones of Bill C-6 that you are considering here today.

We certainly do not believe that ministerial responsibilities can be exercised through approval of these provisions in Bill C-6. We believe that by approving these amendments the Crown is exposing itself and the public to unsafe aviation and air transportation outcomes. We believe that the minister cannot effectively discharge his or her obligations through the extent of delegation to the carrier community that is sanctioned in this bill.

AIl political parties in the House of Commons supported the Federal Accountability Act. We do not believe that the principles enunciated in the new Federal Accountability Act can be accommodated through the non-disclosure and Access to Information Act exemptions that are proposed to be provided to airlines and their associations through this bill.

How are the Federal Accountability Act principles protected and represented by a bill that permits airlines to keep a serious safety and security breach from being disclosed to the public? How can the public be assured that the minister is discharging his or her obligations when there is no accountability for that disclosure? Does this not fly in the face of the FAA and everything it stands for? Does this not fly in the face of the responsibilities of the minister and the government that are clearly articulated in the foundations of the Aeronautics Act itself?

It is a well-known fact that the whole plan being implemented through this legislation is really about saving the number of government inspectors and presumably saving money for Transport Canada in the process. It is also what we consider to be a substitute for a proper human resource and training plan for the aviation inspectorate, particularly in light of the demographics of the inspectorate community. Obviously, existing and future UCTE members are negatively affected by this approach, and our interests clearly conflict with those espoused in Bill C-6.

At the same time, we are not convinced that aviation and public safety are matters that belong on the government balance sheet, nor can safety be compromised at all, given the clear responsibilities of the government with regard to aviation safety.

We would go so far as to suggest that this approach has become a substitute for proper and judicious management of the inspectorate function. And don't just take my word for it. We would encourage you to seek out the informed views of experts such as retired Alberta Justice Virgil Moshansky, a man who has extensively studied the aviation safety and management system impacts following the 1989 Air Ontario Dryden crash and who has subsequently given public statements, speeches, and interviews since. Justice Moshansky has been widely quoted over the years, but I would direct you to a series of excellent articles in the Toronto Star from June of 2006. In one of those articles, the justice is quoted as follows:

I am skeptical whether 'partner relationships'...are in the best interests of aviation safety. It is possible if they get too cozy, they'll maybe let things slip by.

Justice Moshansky has always said that a healthy and independent inspectorate is essential to aviation safety. We couldn't agree more. UCTE and other organizations representing pilots and other airline workers have presented, and will present further to you on Bill C-6. There will be some consistency of views in these presentations.

Government officials and airlines will present a countervailing perspective. It is up to you, as legislators, to determine what is in the public interest, but I would ask you to consider the following recommendations in light of the public interest. Remember that we are talking about the safety of the public when they fly in airplanes in Canada. Remember that no amount of delegation of system management will replace ministerial and government responsibilities and accountability. The government is responsible and accountable, and that's the end of the story. So we'd ask you, please, to consider these recommendations in this light.

The government process of designating external organizations is being increasingly practised but usually in areas where the implications are not that great and where the entire functions are being transferred to an outside body and where that body has no responsibilities except for those quasi-judicial regulatory functions.

In this instance, however, the government is proposing to designate external organizations to monitor compliance with its own rules and standards when the organization may have conflicting roles and accountabilities. We fail to see how this is consistent and even allowed under the Statutory Instruments Act, but we would also say that it completely contravenes any standards of accountability that are now part of government policy and legislation. We would recommend removal of the “designated organization” sections of Bill C-6.

Accountability and responsibility absolutely require that inspection reports and safety violations be made public. We would recommend the removal of all provisions that permit non-disclosure of inspection reports and self-reported safety violations. This recommendation would apply to all permissive non-disclosure, including sections 5.392, management systems exemption; 5.393, data flight recorder exemption; and 5.395, voluntary reporting exemption.

Thirdly, if safety system management structures are to be encouraged and permitted, there must be a system of continuous improvement built into the entire accountability structure.

It is impossible to have a well-functioning and continuously improving system that does not have effective external checks and balances and redresses for those errors and omissions uncovered by the external checks and balances. In this respect, we would recommend that all inspection and self-reporting disclosures be available to the public and that whistle-blowing protections be introduced into the statute.

Employees of airlines and airports should have the inherent ability to report safety infractions to Transport Canada inspectors without fear of reprisals from their employers or its agents. Additionally, along as SMS structures are encouraged and permitted, there should be more independent safety audits subject to disclosure.

All these recommendations would combine and bring together a process that has a chance to continuously improve.

Finally, the Canada Labour Code provides for a series of important workers' rights that apply to all federally regulated institutions, including airlines. The code provides employee protections for unsafe working conditions and enshrines employees' right to know workplace hazards. For employees who work in the airline world, knowing their work environment is as safe as it can be is an important worker right.

The conflicts between the employee protections articulated in the code and the “designated organization” and “management systems” delegation proposals in Bill C-6 are very profound. We already are seeing the erosion of Canada Labour Code rights with SMS structures now in place. We believe that the primacy of the Canada Labour Code should be codified in Bill C-6 and the Aeronautics Act.

I hope that you find our positions and recommendations are in the public interest. That interest is to protect the travelling public in Canada and to exercise the responsibilities and authorities given to the government and the Minister of Transport in a responsible, transparent, and accountable manner. We believe our recommendations are entirely consistent with that principle, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.