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.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm quite disturbed by some of these answers, but I'll come back for a moment, Mr. Preuss, to the issue that's arisen through our Bill C-6 hearings, which is the cancellation of the national audit program in March 2006. Did you, Transport Canada, conduct a risk assessment prior to the cancellation of the national audit program?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

This is meeting number 42, 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 we have Mr. Merlin Preuss, director general of civil aviation. Thank you, Mr. Preuss, for being here today. Welcome.

As a person who has attended many of these meetings, you're welcome to make opening remarks of seven minutes. Then we'll go to rounds by the committee members.

Welcome, and please proceed.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to correct something.

Mr. Julian referred to the union that represents the inspectors. In fact, they did testify before this committee that their primary purpose is to represent the interests of their members and not aviation safety. They were pretty clear about that.

I'd like to focus on another statement that was made at this table, and that is the suggestion that the SMS that is being proposed under Bill C-6 is intended to replace regulatory measures.

I don't understand the bill to suggest that. I haven't heard any Transport Canada members suggest that. Is that your understanding of what this bill intends to do, that SMS would simply replace an existing regulatory structure, or is it more typically an integration of SMS with the current regulatory structure?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for coming here today.

We've had, basically, two types of witnesses. We've had witnesses who've spoken largely to the theory of SMS, like you--and we appreciate your presence here--but every single witness who spoke in detail about how this is actually being implemented has very clearly come out against what Transport Canada is doing.

We have the Federal Pilots Association, the inspectors, and 90% of them, who have 40 years' experience or more, have indicated that this proposal from the government would actually prevent them from addressing and correcting certificate holder safety problems. And 86% of all inspectors are very worried about the implementation of this system.

So I have to ask you this, and then I'll ask a second question as well.

First, do you simply disregard what those who are closest to the aviation industry and aviation inspectors are actually saying regarding their concerns about the system?

Second, we have these clear violations. You mentioned one of them, driving without a licence, where we're not in conformity with ICAO regulations. The second is around flight times, flight duty periods, and rest periods for cabin crews, something that was a violation that was raised in the safety audit in 2005 and not corrected. In fact, Bill C-6 actually stops the implementation of what ICAO has clearly indicated is required.

My second question is, are violations of the ICAO standards important, yes or no?

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

Therein lies the problem, Mr. Maurino. The bill makes no provision for regulatory oversight. We have a bill on SMS without any guarantee of adequate regulatory oversight. That's a fact. Regardless of how you look at it, the bill contains no guarantee that a regulatory oversight regime will be maintained. That's what has us worried.

What you don't understand is that at the same time that this bill was introduced and that we were working on Bill C-6, the National Audit Program was cancelled. Right now, the eight largest airlines are not inspected annually and the five largest airports in Canada are not subject to inspections every three years, as recommended by the ICAO, the reason being that this program was abolished in March 2006. We are concerned about these developments.

I'm not saying that things are going badly. However, since the bill makes no provision for regulatory oversight, there is a danger that one day, the entire safety system will be at risk, because it could be found that ICAO standards are not being respected when the next audit takes place. I believe that will be in five years' time.

We'd like to hear you views on this matter. We don't want to see Canada head down the wrong path because Transport Canada thought SMS would replace regulatory measures.

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

Which was “severely limit or rescind the Bill C-6 provision that allows Transport Canada to delegate the safety oversight to an industry association.”

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Just so you know, there is a suggestion that there had been a general sentiment from the witnesses that in fact that was happening. That's actually not the case. In fact, overwhelmingly, the witnesses who appeared before this committee actually strongly supported Bill C-6, subject to minor modifications, and we're working through some of those. But in fact there was general consensus, except for one or two exceptions, that this is an excellent direction for Canada to go. Just so you know that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Do you sense that this federal government's attempt to introduce Bill C-6 and formalize the use of safety management systems within Canada's aviation industry is a significant step forward in ensuring ongoing safety within the industry?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witness for being forthright and for that very useful information. I think Mr. Julian has been trying to draw you into a conclusion that you cannot make on the facts, and I've noted that you've resisted doing that. You've already stated that you haven't been briefed by Transport Canada staff on this. Have you had a chance to look at Bill C-6?

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

Mr. Maurino, I want to make sure that I don't mislead you or mislead myself. I don't think the committee is for a moment suggesting that we get rid of regulations; I think the issue that's surfaced before this committee has to do with how the inspection of the adherence to those regulations is conducted. It has to do with whether the inspection is solely by the SMS system or whether there is an inspectorate that is responsible to a government body and that runs parallel to this SMS system. Is that the most appropriate thing, or should it be an SMS system like the one being considered under Bill C-6, to eventually do away with the inspectorate?

Aviation Safety

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities indicated in this House, with regard to Mr. Moshansky's testimony on aviation safety, “This expert's testimony could not have been clearer. He said that the proposed system, the system that is now in place, will improve transportation safety”.

How can the minister ignore the fact that this same expert said, on the contrary, that Bill C-6 will create the perfect conditions for other aviation tragedies?

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

This is just a thought, Mr. Chair, so you can dispose of it as you see fit.

If I follow you correctly, when we're back we have three meetings, not four. Two of those are not dealing with Bill C-6. Would it be something to consider that the first one, the meeting on March 21, not be Bill C-6 as well, so that we can dispose of other business if you...and then bunch them in April?

It just seems that we're being a bit disjointed here. Now, if we have to be, then let's be.... Let's try to bunch these six in April and dispose of it.

But that's just a thought. As I say, you can deal with it as you see fit.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to come back to the issue of Bill C-6 witnesses. Mr. Holbrook presented a lot of material, and we had some real concerns that he come back before us. Justice Moshansky said very clearly that we should be hearing from the inspectors themselves. But those are two issues that I guess we'll deal with at the agenda committee.

The other issue is the motion that I brought forward for the national Marine Advisory Council. I just want to serve notice that I'll be bringing that up, now that Mr. Bell is back, on the 21st. So if we could reserve some time at that first meeting back to discuss that motion, I'd appreciate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

On the 21st, when we come back, we will continue with Bill C-6. We have confirmed Canada Post for the 26th. We actually lose the 19th because of the budget, just for information sake. On the 28th we will be dealing with the Tassé report. Now we have today's motion, which is suggesting that we want to get this in before the end of March. That would either have to be.... Do we have enough days? That would be a Wednesday--I guess the 28th. It would involve moving the Tassé report back into the next month to accommodate Mr. Laframboise's motion today. Is that agreeable?

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

There are a couple of things. First, I want to thank the staff for the documentation we have received on the regulatory and legal underpinnings of the current system. I appreciate that. I was going to mention that we're still waiting for the Transport Canada stuff, both the road map of the amendments and the numbers. If the numbers are there, that's fine; then we're just missing a road map.

Second, Mr. Chairman, I believe we had the International Civil Aviation Organization on our list of potential witnesses. According to our witness today, we're not carrying out audits as frequently as expected under the aviation safety international standards. We heard previously the same thing about the frequency of verification of pilot proficiency. I'm wondering if indeed it would be appropriate for us to invite representatives of the International Civil Aviation Organization to appear before us--or perhaps insist that they do--at some point before we conclude our hearings on Bill C-6.