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

This bill was last introduced in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in October 2007.

Sponsor

Lawrence Cannon  Conservative

Status

Not active, as of June 13, 2007
(This bill did not become law.)

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.

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.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Votes

June 20, 2007 Passed That Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with further amendments.
June 20, 2007 Failed That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 44.
June 20, 2007 Failed That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 43.
June 20, 2007 Failed That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 36.
June 20, 2007 Failed That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 35.
June 20, 2007 Failed That Bill C-6, in Clause 49, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 78 with the following: “(2) Sections 5.31 to 5.393 of the Aeronautics Act, as enacted by section 12 of this Act, shall not have”
June 20, 2007 Failed That Bill C-6, in Clause 49, be amended by deleting lines 14 to 16 on page 78.
June 20, 2007 Failed That Bill C-6, in Clause 12, be amended by deleting line 35 on page 11 to line 5 on page 16.
June 20, 2007 Failed That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 12.
Nov. 7, 2006 Passed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

April 23rd, 2007 / 4:25 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Minister Cannon, for coming forward once again today to help answer some questions on Bill C-6.

Hopefully this committee can continue to work together in the great progress that we have made. Soon we can be moving into clause-by-clause on Bill C-6, so that we can get on to some other important issues, like shippers' issues, that we're all aware of.

Minister Cannon, one of the storylines that we've really gotten in this committee from the start, with our witnesses, has been an endorsement of the safety management system and overlaying that on our current regulatory system.

In fact I can't recall a witness who hasn't come forward and said that safety management systems are great in theory. In fact, while we're reading quotes into the record, I would like to read a quote from Captain Dan Adamus of the Air Line Pilots Association:

Putting “Safety Management Systems” in place at aviation companies regulated and certified by Transport Canada would be an extremely promising step forward in safeguarding Canada's passengers, crew, and cargo. If it is passed, Bill C-6 would set the stage for a quantum leap in safety that will help detect safety threats long before accidents occur. ALPA strongly urges the Parliament to pass this important legislation.

Now, also Judge Moshansky, who was here, talked about SMS and the importance it would have. He actually claimed to have been one of the founders to start the conversation around SMS. Everybody is clearly in favour of SMS, as long as the current regulatory system and process remains in place. And from conversations with you and the department, I believe that those systems are not only going to stay in place, they're going to get a little bit stricter.

I would like to give you the opportunity to set the record straight for this committee on what we will be doing with the existing regulatory system.

April 23rd, 2007 / 4:15 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

I have never had any difficulty, Minister, treating people well when they reciprocate, never.

This is my third question. In his response to your parliamentary secretary, Judge Moshansky said that he believed that if Bill C-6 included a statement specifying that Transport Canada must maintain regulatory oversight, the bill would comply with international standards. He believed that in his opinion it did not.

I would like to hear your comments on this point, Mr. Minister.

April 23rd, 2007 / 4:10 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

Thank you.

Several months ago there was a discussion around this table regarding the difference between the immunity provisions of Bill C-6 and whistle-blowing legislation, and I believe the inspectors' unions felt that whistle-blowing legislation was more appropriate. Your staff made it very clear that the immunity provisions are essential to ensure that SMS works. You touched on that earlier in your discussions. Could you clarify again the distinction between the two: immunity and whistle-blower? And why is it that we prefer immunity to whistle-blowing legislation?

April 23rd, 2007 / 4:10 p.m.
See context

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

Thank you.

I've read through Bill C-6, and there's been a suggestion around this table on numerous occasions that somehow Bill C-6 is taking away from the current regulatory oversight that is there. I've read this bill through a number of times, and I don't see that in there.

I' m wondering, first of all, whether you believe Bill C-6 takes away from the current regulatory oversight. Secondly, Mr. Minister, the amendments you intend to bring forward, are they specifically going to address that concern that's been raised by a number of members of this committee?

April 23rd, 2007 / 3:30 p.m.
See context

Pontiac Québec

Conservative

Lawrence Cannon ConservativeMinister of Transport

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dear colleagues, I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before the committee regarding amendments proposed to Bill C-6, an Act to amend the Aeronautics Act.

I would like to start by pointing out that Canada has one of the safest air transportation networks in the world. Moreover, allow me to draw the attention of committee members to the fact that over the last 10 years, Transport Canada on two occasions voluntarily agreed to have Canada submit to comprehensive International Civil Aviation Organization audits. The most recent audit, undertaken in 2005, showed that Canada had a rate of compliance of 95.5% compared with an average of 68% for other countries. Moreover, Canada was singled out as a model for the 190 other signatory countries.

Safety management systems in particular are an international initiative recognized as the most significant advancement in aviation safety in recent years, and Transport Canada is considered a world leader in this area.

The proposed amendments contained in Bill C-6 are not before Parliament for the purpose of seeking authority to establish SMS. They are intended to maximize the effectiveness of the existing SMS safety framework and to facilitate the implementation of SMS for certificate holders. This would be done by allowing me, as the Minister of Transport, to require, by order, certificate holders to enhance their SMS or take corrective measures regarding the systems when I consider these systems are deficient. As well, the proposed amendments would provide protection provisions for individuals regarding internal reporting of safety information.

SMS is not self-regulation. I repeat: SMS is not self-regulation. It is not deregulation and it has never been about reducing the number of inspectors involved in safety oversight. The number one priority for resource allocation has been, and will continue to be, to ensure effective safety oversight of the industry.

As I have said on many occasions, SMS regulations are an additional layer above and beyond the existing regulations, requiring certificate holders to be more proactive in identifying hazards before they lead to accidents. SMS implementation does demand changes in how some aspects of safety oversight are delivered.

A new SMS enforcement policy has been established by stating clearly that all intentional violations will be vigorously enforced, and we have proposed in Bill C-6 that the maximum level of sanction be significantly increased, as you have seen. If certificate holders are unwilling to develop appropriate corrective measures, or are unable to implement these measures, enforcement action will be vigorously pursued.

The cancellation of the national audit program is also of concern to some and has been used as an example supporting the belief that we are curtailing safety oversight under SMS. In fact, the safety oversight of large operations will continue to be subject to thorough and rigorous safety assessment and validation processes. For the operations outside the SMS safety framework, such as those other than large air carriers, nothing has changed.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, colleagues, I would like to clarify parts of the bill dealing with reporting programs.

As you know, there are two types of voluntary reporting schemes under Bill C-6. They offer different types of protection. The first scheme is a universal and voluntary reporting program which would not involve disciplinary action. All aviation industry stakeholders have access to it and may use it to issue safety-related reports. Individuals are assured that all reports remain anonymous and that the information will not be used against them for law enforcement purposes.

The purpose of this protection is to encourage comprehensive data reporting on safety-related matters, which Transport Canada could not obtain otherwise. I should point out that this protection would not apply when there are accidents of course, criminal offences, or voluntary violations.

The second scheme is directly related to the safety management system and deals with information which could be obtained by Transport Canada when a certificate holder's internal reporting system is being evaluated or audited. This scheme encourages individuals to voluntarily declare safety-related data and provides employers and employees protection against access to information, as well as the assurance that the information will not be used against them. This type of protection also covers data collected from flight recorders.

The purpose is to promote a culture of trust among employers and employees as well as to amass as much safety-related data as possible. Both schemes are based on the same principle. Moreover, once data has been depersonalized, it becomes accessible to all for the purpose of additional analysis and distribution.

That said, safety monitoring reports will, of course, be subject to the provisions of the Access to Information as well as the Privacy Act. Transport Canada has endeavoured to strike a fair balance, to encourage individuals to regularly report data which will serve to enhance air safety without compromising accountability, while maintaining the right to pursue law enforcement action where needed.

Some witnesses have advocated the creation of whistleblower protection. This possibility was studied, but we realized this approach could not be adopted inside the SMS framework if we want to nurture a safety culture. However, whistleblower-like protection exists in the proposed voluntary non-punitive regime described above, and it already exists in the civil aviation issues reporting system, which is open to everyone.

Finally, it's important to mention that these protections will never prevent enforcement action for deliberate and wilful commission of violation for which Transport Canada would have obtained evidence through its own investigations.

In conclusion, I would like to note that we have listened to the testimony provided by various witnesses and the concerns raised by the members around the table. I am happy to inform you that the government will be bringing forward amendments to address these concerns, specifically on the issues I have outlined here today.

I would be pleased to work with this committee in a positive and responsible manner in order to contribute to the consideration and passage of air safety-related legislative provisions in Bill C-6.

I thank you for your attention. Departmental officials and I are now prepared to answer your questions.

April 23rd, 2007 / 3:30 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 45. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, November 7, 2006, we are studying Bill C-6, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Joining us today we have Mr. Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Also joining us we have members of the department: Mr. Marc Grégoire, Mr. Merlin Preuss, and Mr. Franz Reinhardt.

I know the minister has an opening comment, and I would ask him to make it. Then we'll move on to committee questions.

Please proceed.

April 18th, 2007 / 5:10 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Knowing that, then, on Monday we will deal with Bill C-6 with the minister, and departmental officials for the full meeting.

April 18th, 2007 / 5:10 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Again, I can't speak for the minister. I only know that he's available that day on Bill C-6. I guess I'm more or less looking for confirmation that we could have him here.

April 18th, 2007 / 5:10 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

He's here on Bill C-6.

I'll get to estimates later. We have him booked also; we have a tentative time for that.

But because it's Wednesday, I want to confirm with everybody for Monday. I just want to make sure everybody understands that it will be Bill C-6. It will be the department's and the minister's appearance on the bill. I'll get into this further; I just wanted to give you a heads-up for Monday, as to whether it's suitable.

April 18th, 2007 / 5:10 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

What is his expectation? Is he going to be here on estimates, or is he here on Bill C-6?

April 18th, 2007 / 5:10 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Thank you, and welcome back.

I do want to advise the committee, just to give you a heads-up, that I've been advised that on Monday, April 23, the minister will be available with department officials on Bill C-6. I know we still have another opportunity for witnesses, but that was the day he was available, and I would seek confirmation that we can confirm him. Monday will be Bill C-6.

April 16th, 2007 / 3:55 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

People from other areas of the country too are interested in this issue. In the last month we've had two derailments in Ontario: one in northern Ontario, where you end up with sulphuric acid in the aquifer--or hopefully not, but certainly in the streams--and one near Kingston that disrupts the whole system. The concern goes away beyond B.C.

I have no difficulty whatsoever, as a member of the committee, supporting the motion to summon people here from CN and CP. With all due respect, I think they can walk and chew gum at the same time, and they should be here.

I do absolutely respect, Mr. Chairman, your admonition that we not go into the matter of the current labour negotiations in which CN is involved with its unions. However, I do have a difficulty with the notion that is being put forward that there may be matters of rail safety that would involve questions relating to the unions. As we've seen in our studies of Bill C-6, there have been some union positions here about whether we should be doing air inspections, or stopping them, and so forth. I absolutely have no difficulty relying on your judgment in determining when a question or a comment is appropriate or not appropriate and cutting that person off. I'd rather we stick to that and give ourselves the flexibility we need to look at rail safety.

My colleague here, as far as I know, has not put forward a formal motion. He is putting forward a suggestion on how to proceed. I suspect we should just proceed and rely on your good judgment to do it the right way.

Thank you.

March 28th, 2007 / 5:30 p.m.
See context

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Thank you, Mr. Tassé. We do appreciate your candidness here.

Just before we adjourn, Mr. Bélanger asked about when we return.

On Monday, April 16, we deal with Mr. Bell's rail safety. On Wednesday, April 18, subject to the motion that is purported to be coming ahead, we're going to do rail safety. On Monday, April 23, we'll have witnesses to Bill C-6 or rail safety, subject to the number of witnesses who come out. On the 25th we're back to witnesses on Bill C-6, with department officials, if we're at that point. And then we'll move into clause-by-clause.

The meeting is adjourned.

March 28th, 2007 / 4:10 p.m.
See context

Liberal

Paul Zed Liberal Saint John, NB

Then let me go back to those comments.

Those comments were made in the context of Mr. Preuss's conducting some inquiries throughout his duties to various persons as they related to Bill C-6. Is that fair?

March 28th, 2007 / 3:50 p.m.
See context

Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport

Merlin Preuss

Mr. Julian, I think that's a very important question, and to it, and to the many other questions and concerns that have been raised at this committee, I will be more than happy to provide you a complete answer in context. But I'm frankly not prepared today to discuss issues surrounding BillC-6. My understanding is that I was here to respond to the allegations.