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.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I have the floor, Mr. Julian. You've taken enough time on the floor.

But the reality is that we have Bill C-6 coming forward. If Mr. Bélanger wants to have the matter dealt with under estimates, let's have a proposal on how much time it would take and deal with it at the committee, but let's not beat around the bush. Do you want to deal with the issue of estimates?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'm used to Mr. Julian filibustering time after time—C-6, no C-6—and I would think that with this news release from the Teamsters supporting C-6 and the minister's great initiative—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

At the subcommittee meeting, we agreed that on Monday, May 28, we would have the department officials on railway safety for the first hour and Bill C-6 clause-by-clause for the second hour. On Wednesday, May 30, Bill C-6, we have clause-by-clause. Then on Monday, June 4, we had tentatively set a business meeting to prepare a draft report about rail safety.

Monsieur Bélanger.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes, we do. We have department officials booked for the first hour on railway safety, and the second hour is clause-by-clause on Bill C-6.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I heard you make a comment that we would resume on Monday, May 28, with Bill C-6. We have Transport Canada coming on rail safety.

[Susan Stanfield]

That is correct. I have never seen it drafted in such a way that the statute you're dealing with says, this statute is subordinate to anything else. It's usually done in terms of another statute being superior because there's more certainty that way. You know what you're dealing with. By making a statute subordinate to everything else, you don't actually know; it's very difficult to know, unless you've read the whole statute book, that this is your intent, that anything else dealing with the same subject matter should take precedence over what you've put in the Aeronautics Act.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Just very quickly, there were some requests made by committee members last time, and I want to provide to them copies of certain materials, one being the existing regulations and new regulatory proposals on safety management systems. We have a copy for everybody here today, in French and English.

Also, we have a copy of a release, just for the members' interest, from Teamsters Canada in relation to Bill C-6, and I will ask the clerk to distribute that as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting 52. The orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, November 7, 2006, Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Joining us today from the Department of Transport are Franz Reinhardt, Susan Stanfield, and Merlin Preuss; and from the Department of National Defence, Christopher Shelley and Alex Weatherston.

Today, as previously discussed, we're going to deal with clause-by-clause of Bill C-6.

Mr. Jean.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The hour being 5:30, the meeting is adjourned until Wednesday, at which time we will proceed with clause-by-clause on Bill C-6.

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

I want to come back to the point that Mr. Volpe raised, which is that after the testimony that we've heard, most of the witnesses who have come before this committee and have testified in detail have raised very serious concerns. Justice Moshansky was one of those witnesses. He talked about regulatory oversight not being merely reduced but being systematically dismantled under Bill C-6, and we've heard this from many different witnesses who've testified in much more depth.

We've had witnesses who've talked about the theory of SMS, and I certainly understand that there are those out there who believe in the theory of SMS. Most witnesses have spoken theoretically to SMS, but anyone who has spoken to the details has raised serious concerns.

So getting back to Mr. Volpe's point about whether or not this makes sense to push forward, my concern is, is there another agenda at play here?

In the previous transport committee, in the previous Parliament, we had issues around reducing the flight attendant ratio, which many of us at the transport committee thought was a bad idea. We managed to convince the minister in the previous Parliament to stop that approach. Then we came into the new Parliament and the issue was right back on the table with a new minister, and we had to convince that minister, again, that we did not believe it was advisable to reduce the flight attendant ratios on Canadian flights.

Some of this took place in the last election campaign, some of the reducing of the regulatory oversight. My concern is that there seems to be an agenda that's pushed forward despite the fact that we have very credible witnesses expressing real, serious concerns about Transport Canada's direction. I don't get a sense from you, as the high officials in Transport Canada, that there's any reflection upon what that might mean, that perhaps this is the wrong direction to take.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Part of what we're struggling with around the table is to get the information we require before we go into Bill C-6. The first issue I wanted to raise with you is the whole question around flight inspectors. We have information on flight inspectors' positions, but what we don't have is how many positions are vacant. In how many positions currently are employees on leave? How many are on long-term disability leave? How many of those positions are vacant for other absences? That's information I would very much like to see, and I think other members of the committee would very much like to see. Not the number of positions. Of course, that doesn't change, but how many are actually being filled? How many are otherwise absent through long-term disability or vacant positions? If you could table that tomorrow with the committee, that would be extremely helpful.

Secondly, on the issue around the closed files for these serious safety violations that were being inspected, we heard testimony that there are about 100 files. Mr. Rubin, who testified last week, believes the number is much higher. We did ask a number of weeks ago to have that information tabled; it hasn't been tabled with the committee. That information would be helpful as well. Before we proceed, we need to get that information. Otherwise, I think there's a sense that something is being withheld from us. I'd like to be proven wrong by having that material brought forward.

One of the witnesses spoke to the Air Transat near tragedy, and I want to know whether Transport Canada has audited the SMS for Air Transat.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I would simply point out that for now, we must rely on Transport Canada to ensure our safety. Until such time as a professional association is created, it's in our best interest to see to it that Bill C-6 provides for the best possible flight safety in Canada.

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

I also wanted to quote briefly the Canadian Federal Pilots Association. You referenced that as well in your presentation. The Canadian Federal Pilots Association were surveyed, and 80% of them believe this Transport Canada plan for SMS will prevent them from addressing and correcting safety problems before they happen; 67% believe that Transport Canada's SMS will result in a higher level of risk in Canada's aviation system; and 80% believe that SMS is simply a response to dwindling resources on the part of Transport Canada. Do you believe if we simply push through this Bill C-6, without gutting it and rebuilding it, that essentially we will be putting Canadian lives at risk?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One of the great dilemmas we face with Bill C-6 is trying to strike a balance between regulatory overview, that is maintaining a proper inspection system, and the safety management system, which is supposed to provide added security. The problem lies in wanting to maintain an adequate safety system.

Mr. Danford, you are an inspector. I'd like you to tell me what your job entails and how it is likely to change if we verify management systems instead of carrying out direct inspections of pilots or aircraft. What is your position on this matter?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

We're being non-partisan, so I just want to acknowledge that Mr. Jean and the minister recognize the fact that all that was old is new and good, because Bill C-6 and Bill C-11 passed thanks to the Liberal members around the table.