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.

[Sam Barone]

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

I want to clarify for the committee that this is not a back-of-the-envelope approach we have here. Aviation SMS are well established throughout the world, and they're carefully designed to look at the realities of our industry in terms of how we do business.

Moreover, we are very proud of our safety record. Even according to Transport Canada's safety data, we're among the best in the world, and it's getting better. We're not asking for anyone's trust when it comes to safety. We actually welcome the scrutiny, Mr. Chairman. We are, as an industry, one of the most tightly and highly regulated industries in Canada and in the world, and when it comes to safety, rightly so. Bill C-6 simply introduces better discipline. It codifies and entrenches, actually, the concerns about punitive and non-punitive reporting, and we want that codified.

Moreover, for us as an industry, safety is not a cost, it's an investment. Right now, we are using SMS. What we're saying is that this bill codifies it in a cost-neutral way. It also codifies some other concerns that the honourable member has brought up, Mr. Chairman.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Thank you very much for taking the time to be here, gentlemen.

Bear with me; my first question is quite long, but I think it describes what might be happening. I'll ask Mr. Benson initially to respond and also get your comments.

We have seen how Air Canada Jazz mechanics have exposed dangerous practices that have put the lives of 80,000 Canadians at risk over the last five years due to near misses. The airline has allowed an average of one flight a week to take off, even with serious mechanical problems. We have also seen how four Air Canada Jazz mechanics were suspended last year for highlighting dangerous practices by the airline concerned, after their complaints to Transport Canada yielded no results.

At their last press conference, Canada's aviation inspectors released a Pollara survey indicating that two and three aviation inspectors believed that Transport Canada's SMS system supported by Bill C-6 will increase risk to the system, and 80% of Canada's most experienced inspectors say it will prevent them from correcting safety problems before they happen. They have also exposed the fact that a lack of whistle-blower protection in Bill C-6 will not provide protection to whistle-blowers from a punitive environment and will increase the safety deficit.

We're assuming the inspectors know their trade. What they said is common sense. By handing oversight exclusively to industry associations and airline companies and leaving the determination of appropriate risk levels in the hands of the airlines, inspectors will no longer be able to assess if what they see on paper is reflected in reality, on-site. As we have seen, workers will have even less protection if they blow the whistle.

Do you agree with what the inspectors are saying? If so, what would you propose as counterweights as part of a balanced approach to fix the problems? Mr. Benson, you mentioned you have other recommendations of what needs to be done. Gentlemen, please feel free to comment on this.

[Phil Benson, Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to all.

Teamsters Canada is a labour organization with more than 125,000 members. Teamsters Canada represents workers in many sectors, including all areas of transport, air, rail, road, and ports, and also in other sectors, such as retail, motion pictures, breweries, soft drinks, construction, dairy, warehousing. We're also affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which has 1.5 million members across North America. We thank this committee for allowing us to participate in the review of Bill C-6.

Most of the bill appears to be housekeeping or updating of the current legislation, bringing it up to current requirements. Though there may be some need for improvements, our comments will be limited to those areas of the bill that in our opinion may overreach the goal of the legislation, affecting the safety and security of the industry.

The management systems proposed by the bill, one would think, are best corporate practices that do not need legislative approval. As a vision, however, we have concerns that proposals are not inconsequential and may lead to unsatisfactory results. The management system legislative framework will be fleshed out by regulation, a regulatory process that is heavily influenced by both the transport department's policy promoting efficiency and the economy, and the application of a so-called “smart regulatory process”. This legislation may lead to effective deregulation, self-regulation; if that's desired, then the legislation should clearly state it.

It has been claimed that the airline industry would never do anything to compromise safety and security—the legislation regulatory process under this bill will certainly test that premise—and claims the industry does not need prescriptive rules. Indeed, the pressures of the market and the bottom line would never produce a car that blew up, tires that blew out, materials that caused illnesses, prescription drugs that did more harm than good, or companies that push workers beyond what biology allows.

We have prescriptive rules in place because it is a company's job to make money and the government's job to govern. One does not let the fox look after the chicken coop. Canadians deserve to know that the government is responsible for the safety and security of the public. No matter what the legislation, if an incident occurs, it will not be the CEO of a company or representative of an industry association who will bear the brunt; ministers do, because that's what members of Parliament demand, and that's what the Canadian public demands.

Paragraph 4.9(v) would permit fatigue management procedures. Again, one would expect that management of fatigue involves best corporate practices that do not need legislative approval. Clearly, fatigue is not just another safety and security risk that can be managed. Each sector in the transportation industry may have different processes or needs to function in their market niche. However, the biology of workers does not change, nor does the need for prescriptive rules to ensure that minimum standards apply. Standards that comply with sleep science, not the needs of the industry, are the bottom line of companies.

Hours of service of flight attendants was derailed under the existing regulatory process. The science is being ignored and minimum safeguards are not in place now, and we feel it may be more difficult to achieve if the legislation passes unchanged. The issue of hours of service for transportation workers was dealt with in the Arthurs report on part III of the Canada Labour Code. We agree with the recommendations that Labour Canada should participate or take the lead for setting hours of work for transportation workers. Flight attendants and all workers in the aviation industry deserve the same rights as any workers—health and sanitation breaks, breaks between assignments, time to eat.

Rotational shifts and fatigue are not just safety and security risks to manage. The current regulatory process examined how it affects the planes in operation, and not how it affects workers' lives and their health and safety. We disagree with that approach. These issues are fundamental health and safety workplace issues governed by the Canada Labour Code, and it should not be that if one chooses to work in the transportation industry, they do not apply.

We leave it to the committee to imagine where Bill C-6 will take us. We're not always comfortable with the current regulatory process, though we will admit at times it does make sense and outcomes can be achieved that are mutually satisfactory to all in the industry. We are certain Canadians will not be comfortable with where Bill C-6 may lead. Teamsters Canada submits that this bill needs some work before it is passed.

Thank you, and I'm ready for any questions you may have.

[Sam Barone, President and Chief Executive Officer, Air Transport Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Honourable members, good afternoon.

I'm very pleased to be here as president of the Air Transport Association of Canada to speak to you on the very important matter of Bill C-6. As you may know, ATAC represents the commercial aviation sector in Canada. Collectively our members account for over 95% of all commercial aviation revenue in Canada.

Nothing unites our members more than our absolute commitment to the safety and security of our passengers. It is the most important thing we do. That's why we're here today to ask you for your support in the passage of Bill C-6. As many of you will recall, this bill has been up for consideration previously under different numbers, but always with the same content. Why? Because this is one of the few examples of legislation with broad support.

ATAC has supported passage of this bill each time because it improves the efficiency and effectiveness of how air carriers manage their safety protocols through safety management systems. The same holds true in the case of Bill C-6. ATAC supports this legislation and urges members of this committee to support it as well.

Safety management systems provide an additional layer of assuredness to the way aviation safety is managed in Canada. They work for carriers and their passengers alike, because they imposes a standardized accountable discipline on the way companies manage their safety protocols. In short, it's a risk management type of approach.

Carriers are mandated to submit SMS plans to Transport Canada for approval. These plans are scrutinized against a very rigid set of criteria to ensure the performance plan is both comprehensive and deliverable. In fact, all of Canada's major carriers routinely use SMS today to manage their safety protocols. Bill C-6 would simply recognize and codify a safety management system that is largely in place today and working quite well.

Having briefly addressed the merits of Bill C-6 and why we think it deserves your support, let me turn to a few areas that could stand improvement. I want to start with the fundamental principle of fostering a climate of open, non-punitive reporting. This is central to the ultimate success of SMS regimes. For this reason we are concerned about the lack of protections in the bill for the integrity of safety data provided to Transport Canada.

While protections are provided to the individuals making initial reports, it is not entirely clear if those same protections are extended to carriers. In this regard, members may want to consider amending proposed section 5.39 to be clearer on this point. After all, we are most interested in identifying and mitigating safety risks as soon as possible. We must encourage companies and individuals alike to be open and transparent about their reporting. This is relevant, not out of concern that real safety issues might get buried, but that eventually over time marginal issues might start to not be identified, especially if a given operator has recently been signalled out for issues that ultimately turn out to be insignificant.

We want all operators from the biggest to the smallest to be as forthcoming as possible about all issues. We don't want to create a situation where individuals may choose to not report, out of concern that it might be held against them.

More broadly, we'd also like to see stricter definitions in this bill. That same proposed section 5.39 refers to integrated management systems. The following provisions chart a very clear and prescriptive course for managing a safety management system. For that reason, integrated management systems should be changed to refer to safety management systems. Bill C-6 is designed to deal with safety management; why not just say so?

We would also like to comment on the recent debate surrounding the prospective lack of inspections. Let me assure this committee that rather than using SMS as a means by which to avoid inspections, ATAC is proposing that the data collection provisions called for in Bill C-6 be amended to require on-site gathering by Transport Canada inspectors.

Provisions that require carriers to submit SMS reports to the department by methods such as email are simply not acceptable. In our view, it compromises the integrity of the data and adds an unnecessary and non-value-added layer to the reporting process. Our members welcome and encourage the direct involvement of Transport Canada in this respect.

Again we encourage members of this committee to consider amending proposed section 5.39 to require on-site data inspection by Transport Canada, rather than requiring carriers to submit it electronically or otherwise. Such a move would ensure the integrity of safety data and foster a direct working relationship between carriers and the regulator.

This issue of data integrity is also the basis for another concern we have with the legislation, namely the lack of clarity surrounding the relationship between this bill and other regulatory frameworks. These include the workplace occupational health and safety regulations, the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board, and even access-to-information laws. In short, we want to ensure that safety data is used by and for safety professionals for the express purpose of improving aviation safety and that the use of such data is consistently applied across government departments.

Again, our perspective on this issue is grounded in our desire to foster a climate of fulsome, open reporting. Safety information must be given priority and protection. For that reason, we're asking members to consider amending the act to exclude the use of aviation safety data for any purpose other than aviation safety. From the perspective of the Access to Information Act and the relationship with the Canada Transportation Accident Investigation Safety Board, we must stress that we have no concern about final reports being made available following a full investigation. However, this has to be undertaken with proper care to avoid needlessly implicating individuals or companies involved.

Indeed, full, fair, and frank investigations are in everyone's interest. What is in no one's interest, however, is to have piecemeal, unaudited information being put into the public domain. This has the potential to cause inappropriate and needless worry among the travelling public and to discourage front-line staff from fully disclosing safety concerns.

If SMS is going to be as effective as possible in fostering a climate of non-punitive open reporting, we must ensure the integrity of the information. The theme of protecting the integrity of the safety data is also broadly applicable to many provisions of the act that give the minister too much discretion in the use of the data collected by operators. Proposed paragraph 5.392(1)(c) allows the minister to disclose any data that he deems relevant in the context of a licence suspension. Proposed section 5.394 allows the minister to enter into any agreement with operators without the use of data from flight data recorders or for general aviation safety purposes. And proposed subsection 5.397(1) allows the minister or his designate to use any aviation data for any purpose they consider necessary for aviation data.

In each of these cases, we think it appropriate for Transport Canada to define in the legislation the circumstances under which aviation data will and won't be used. If, for instance, carriers are assured that commercially sensitive competitive information will be excluded from such uses, these clauses become much more palatable.

In short, the best way to foster a spirit of openness and cooperation is to provide assurances of the integrity of information being requested from carriers by the regulator.

Finally, let me return to the issue of non-punitive reporting. I think we can all agree that it is much better to identify problems and get them fixed than to engage in a game of “gotcha”. From that perspective, we should be concerned about the limits imposed on the use of immunity provisions specified in section 5.396. The waiving of immunity should be based on conditions more specific than the number of times an individual uses protection within a given period of time. I would hate to see a potential safety risk go unreported because an individual has already claimed immunity for an unintentional violation within the last two years.

Let me end, Mr. Chairman, where I started. As much as we are concerned about some of the provisions in the bill, on balance it is good legislation which ought to be passed by this Parliament. This is the third incarnation of this bill, and it is time we moved forward with this important modernization of the Aeronautics Act.

With that I thank you for your time and welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure, and Communities, meeting number 38, 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 Canadian Airports Council are Mr. Jim Facette and Mr. Fred Jones; from the Air Transport Association of Canada, Mr. Sam Barone and Mr. Les T. Aalders; from the Canadian Business Aviation Association, Rich Gage; and from Teamsters Canada, Mr. Phil Benson. Welcome.

I'm sure it was given to you as information by the clerk that you can pick the order in which you want to start, but you have seven minutes. Once that's complete, we'll go to a series of questioning.

Jim, do you want to start? Thank you.

[Peter Boag]

I would wholeheartedly agree with that. I think the key word is “empowerment”.

This is an area of aviation safety where a partnership can be far more effective than an us-versus-them situation. Bill C-6, the designated organizations, the delegation authorities, and SMS are all part of creating a much stronger partnership between elements of industry and Transport Canada and are not displacing Transport Canada.

But as our industry continues to grow and mature, the regulatory regime needs to evolve to ensure we provide the highest levels of safety possible here in Canada and internationally, because that international reputation is very important.

[Capt Brian Boucher]

It does count, and we have legislated SMS in this country too.

I'm saying that we need to ensure there's legislation in Bill C-6 that protects the safety of the data. If you don't protect the data, I can tell you right now that our pilots will not report. Our pilots will kill the $10-million-plus flight data analysis program. Believe me, there are a lot of people out there in the industry who would love to get hold of that information.

We're not holding the information here. We want it de-identified. We want to take the information and work with the other countries around the world to enhance flight safety.

We are leaders. We, the Air Canada pilots, want to be part of the program, but we want to do it with protection. Bill C-6 does not give us that protection.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

The reason I ask those questions is that I'm surprised because of the witnesses we've heard. We've had the Transportation Safety Board and Transport Canada here. We've had Mr. Boucher here representing Air Canada pilots. We've had the other pilots association representing some 60,000 pilots across North America. We've had Mr. Jenner and Mr. Boag here. All of them speak very positively about Bill C-6. Some of them have minor reservations, as Mr. Jenner did, but I think we can address some of those concerns.

However, the industry as a whole sees this as a huge step forward. In fact what I'd like to do is quote from Captain Dan Adamus of the Air Line Pilots Association, who really put it quite succinctly. He supported this legislation. Why? It's “the next great leap forward in advancing aviation safety”. He was strongly supportive of SMS. He referred to establishing accountability for safety at the highest levels within a company, and the fact that the reporting of safety occurrences can be done without fear of retribution. He refers to an umbrella framework over the existing safety regulations.

This is not as you have suggested: removing regulation, leaving a vacuum, and then replacing it with SMS. It's a blending of the two, and almost all of the other witnesses—

[Peter Boag, President and Chief Executive Officer, Aerospace Industries Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, honourable members, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. It's a pleasure to be here.

With me today I have Robert Mather, our vice-president of civil aviation of the association. I think Robert brings a unique perspective to this issue, having served for twenty years within Transport Canada in the aircraft certification branch, and more recently having spent almost ten years at one of our member companies, Pratt & Whitney Canada, as the chief airworthiness engineer.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today on behalf of our more than 400 member companies located from coast to coast. Aerospace is a critical component of Canada's advanced technology economy. It employs more than 75,000 people across the country who are engaged in the design, development, and manufacture of aircraft, aircraft systems and components, and aviation infrastructure sold to customers around the world. More than 85% of our industry's output is exported, and that's certainly a testament to the high quality and levels of safety and reliability of Canadian aerospace products and services.

We welcome the opportunity to share with you the aerospace sector's view on how Bill C-6 will help strengthen Canada's long and well-established record of achievement as a world leader in aerospace safety. We believe the proposed changes outlined in the bill before you will translate into better outcomes for everyone, outcomes that will contribute to safer skies, safer aircraft, and ultimately, safer travellers, not just here at home but around the world.

The provisions outlined in Bill C-6, in particular those that relate to designated organizations and safety management systems, will help pave the way toward the aerospace industry's assuming greater responsibility for regulating its own behaviour in areas of the law that are widely seen and accepted as low-risk. We see this development as welcome news.

We believe it does nothing more than assert the patently obvious, that Canada's aerospace industry has arrived. We are a mature, safety-driven industry whose mandate is perennially refuelled by a desire to protect and promote safe air and space travel first and foremost. We believe this bill is recognition of that maturity. It builds on proven delegation authorities and systems and is a proud example of Canada's unwavering commitment to the highest standards of civil aviation in the world. We also believe that effective regulatory oversight is critical to maintaining the confidence of the travelling public, not to mention that of our trading partners around the globe.

AIAC member companies have collaborated with Transport Canada officials in developing safety management systems defined in the bill before you, measures which we think will strengthen aviation safety by building a culture of safety, which Captain Boucher has referred to, while achieving a higher level of efficiency and effectiveness for the industry.

The information provided by Transport Canada has equipped these companies with the tools they will require once Bill C-6 is enacted and the ensuing regulations appended to the bill are introduced.

Canada's aerospace industry boasts a good many small and medium-sized companies, some of which expressed the concern that these safety management systems may be difficult or too costly for smaller corporate players to implement. We are reassured by senior officials within Transport Canada that these concerns are in fact being addressed. The government has demonstrated a willingness to make these safety management systems scalable, and is now committed to working with these firms to ensure that safety management systems are put into effect cost-effectively, with safety effectiveness, and without delay.

Promoting a regulatory regime in aviation safety that promotes the responsible use of voluntary reporting, when and where it makes sense to do so, is an important step in the aerospace industry's evolution as a responsible corporate citizen. We fully expect the government, for its part, to assume the full weight of responsibility for handling and protecting in the strictest confidence, all safety-related data gathered in this way. Meanwhile, we look forward to working with you, the members of this committee, along with Transport Canada officials, as the provisions of the bill are implemented.

The proposed use of designated organizations is a particularly good reflection of the goals outlined in Transport Canada's Flight 2010. We look forward to more examples of this sort of government-industry partnership, which we believe typifies Canada's long-term commitment to aviation safety. We fully expect Bill C-6 will launch us on the path towards many of the objectives Transport Canada has set out in Flight 2010, goals the aerospace industry fully embraces in the interests of putting safety first.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

[Capt Brian Boucher, Senior Director, Flight Safety, Air Canada Pilots Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members.

Good afternoon. My name is Captain Brian Boucher. I am the senior director of flight safety for the Air Canada Pilots Association and also have been an airline pilot with the company for over 29 years, and over 30 years as a pilot in Canada. We appreciate this opportunity to comment formally on Bill C-6, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act.

ACPA represents the 3,000 pilots who fly Air Canada's mainline fleet of 200 narrow-body and wide-body aircraft, domestically and around the world. We deal daily with the operational implications of air regulations. It's not an exaggeration to say that flight safety is our world, and it's been my personal world for over 25 years, as a member of the Dryden inquiry and working with Justice Moshansky for over two years implementing recommendations.

The Minister of Transport is responsible for regulating and supervising aviation in Canada. We understand that the rationale for the bill is to enhance the safety of Canada's aviation system, and we believe that SMS is an important advance in this area.

In the era of SMS, more responsibility is placed on the individual carrier and its management to maintain an adequate safety standard. The regulations also call for an effective means of involving employees, the front-line employees, and their representatives in the implementation and ongoing development of SMS. Those representatives are all the associations within the company, or the corporation that I work for, Air Canada. This participation is necessary in order that SMS can succeed in delivering greater safety. I like to look at that as the three-legged stool. It's not doing away with Transport Canada regulatory body; it's all of us working together as a three-legged stool--the regulatory, the airline, the corporation and those associations.

A key element of SMS is the promotion of a healthy culture of safety, and that's where we have to focus, on culture. In order to succeed, employees must feel free to report errors, safety deficiencies, and inadvertent regulatory violations without the fear--and that's what we've dealt with in the years past--of legal or disciplinary action or damage to reputation. Full reporting provides the data that is one of the fundamentals of SMS. This will only be forthcoming where the confidentiality of reporting is protected to the greatest degree possible. At Air Canada we've been collecting this data now for over five years, way before SMS came to be.

I'll give you an example. Our pilots have been reporting air safety reports. Five years ago we were collecting on average 300 a year among 3,000 pilots. Today we're collecting almost 5,000. So you can see how the culture among our pilots is changing because they know that they don't have to worry about discipline at the end of the road.

In addition, the regulator must have both the ability to oversee the implementation of SMS on an ongoing basis and the determination to hold an airline and its responsible executives accountable for providing and maintaining such a system. We need to have that accountable executive. The role of the regulator changes under SMS; you've heard that. It does not disappear, and I hope we never see it disappear. The regulator must ensure through oversight and observation that companies are able to maintain the integrity of SMS and all those business climates.

ACPA has some specific concerns about the bill that we would like to flag. We are concerned about the power to delegate its rule-making functions, particularly in the airline environment. The act should not permit the designation of airlines or airline business groups to make their own regulations. In a highly competitive business environment, and we're faced with that, and we've been faced with it for the last ten years, airline management lacks the necessary independence from purely commercial goals.

ACPA would support the delegation of personal licensing authority to self-governing professional bodies of airline pilots, along the lines of the medical and the legal professions that are out there today. This would provide an independent verification of airline flight training programs and operating procedures.

We also have serious concerns about how safety information such as air safety reports and flight data from flight data analysis safety programs is treated under this bill. This data monitors and records every action, even every cockpit control movement. Up to 1,800 flight and system parameters are continuously monitored, all in order to promote flight safety. Such data collection under SMS is highly personal and invasive.

You can imagine this, in the job you do today. Up to 1,800 parameters are being recorded, and it's not only the cockpit voice recorder that you're used to, plus the flight data recorders. This is over and above that. There are 1,800 parameters.

We've managed to convince our pilot group that in the interests of safety we can monitor trends and analysis to enhance the safety we have in this country right now. Our pilots bought into that program. It was a tough sell. It was us, the flight safety people within our organization, who made this program work.

At present such flight data is subject to a detailed agreement between our association and Air Canada. This agreement works very well in promoting flight safety goals. Under the agreement, ACPA safety representatives, not Air Canada management, are the gatekeepers of this data. This protection has fostered a relationship of trust where vital safety analysis is shared without the risk of violating the privacy and security of the pilot.

These protections are removed under the proposed subclause 5.394(1), which states:

The Minister, for the purpose of promoting aviation safety, may enter into an agreement with an operator of aircraft respecting the collection, analysis, use and disclosure of information derived from a flight data recorder.

As well, the public interest clauses of this bill provide wide discretion in the courts on behalf of the minister to access any and all flight safety data being collected under SMS. Such unregulated access will have a highly damaging effect on the SMS safety culture now being encouraged under SMS at my airline and at other airlines across Canada. We strongly object to the absence of protections for safety data in this bill.

ACPA also strongly objects to the exclusion of the association as a party to any such agreement. It is a needless omission that ignores the vital privacy interests of the individual without enhancing flight safety. In Germany, for example, a pilot's flight data is protected under law, and it is also protected under law in Australia.

ACPA appreciates the opportunity to present its perspective on these issues. Our membership has particular insights to offer, and in going forward we are committed to participating in the formulation in an active and positive way. ACPA representatives are always available to meet with you and your officials to provide whatever further information and assistance is required.

Thank you for your time and your attention.

[Greg Holbrook, National Chair, Canadian Federal Pilots Association]

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon.

My name is Greg Holbrook. I am the national chair of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association.

The CFPA represents approximately 375 licensed pilots employed by Transport Canada as civil aviation inspectors. CFPA members are professionals who inspect, test, license, monitor, audit, and enforce Canada's aviation safety regulations.

We have serious reservations about Bill C-6 and the safety management systems it authorizes. For years, Transport Canada has achieved acceptable levels of aviation safety with a system of checks and balances and regulatory oversight carried out by inspectors to produce the enviable safety record Canadian travellers now enjoy.

Bill C-6 and SMS set out to switch to affordable levels of safety. That's right, from acceptable to affordable. Driven by forecasted funding cuts and an aviation inspectorate that will shrink by half in the next few years, Bill C-6 will transfer determination of appropriate risk levels to the airlines. With Transport Canada's implementation of SMS, the airlines will decide the safety levels for the travelling public. The airlines' bottom line will now be factored into deciding acceptable risk levels for the public.

The bill will also let airlines monitor their own safety standards and regulatory compliance. Transport Canada has already transferred oversight of the corporate business aviation sector to the Canadian Business Aviation Association. Bill C-6 will give airlines immunity from enforcement for self-reporting of safety violations, a “get out of jail free” card.

Unable to afford its safety responsibilities, Transport Canada is off-loading them. With a number of recent decisions, Transport Canada is already giving up its safety oversight role and is dismantling the system of checks and balances that brought us to the relatively low accident rate we have today.

In spite of some testimony you've heard from Transport Canada officials, SMS is replacing key safety programs that have already been cancelled. Here are a few examples.

In December 2005, Transport Canada issued civil aviation directive number 39, which handed over enforcement and investigation to the airlines themselves. When Transport Canada now receives a report of an occurrence that may require looking into, regardless of the source, the information is to be passed to the airline management, who are requested to handle the situation in accordance with their safety management system. Transport Canada inspectors have been directed not to investigate.

In March 2006, Transport Canada killed the national audit program, which covers the eight largest airlines, the five largest airports, and the three largest aircraft manufacturers in this country. The reason? To allow for regulatory oversight resources and funds to be redirected to the administration of SMS programs. Regional audit programs are being shut down as well.

In October 2006, Transport Canada managers abruptly closed all enforcement investigations into safety violations committed by airlines so long as they had an SMS or were working on one. It was declared no further action was to be taken on all these files.

Pilot proficiency check validity periods have been extended to two years and PPCs will no longer be conducted by Transport Canada inspectors as of December 2007. Airlines have been advised to check their pilots themselves or contract this service, a clear conflict of interest.

Insights from the cockpit provided by PPCs will no longer inform the work of Transport Canada inspectors. I should note that this decision places Canada in violation of international standards. For years, Transport Canada has lacked the resources necessary to adequately inspect and audit Canada's airlines. Rather than increase resources, Transport Canada simply directed staff to comply “with the frequencies to the extent that resources allow”.

To help you understand the different role that inspectors play under SMS, I'd like to give you a then-and-now metaphor.

In the system that has delivered Canada's current high safety rate, inspectors were under the hood of companies they audited and inspected. We flew with the pilots. We were in the maintenance shops. We were in the flight operations centres.

With SMS, we will no longer do regular audits and inspections. We will review SMS documents, SMS reports, and system structures only. Our focus is shifting from actual operations to paper and policy. I invite you to review the publication, which I have included, to see the documents that substantiate my testimony.

Against this backdrop, and with Transport Canada's emphasis on farming out safety oversight, it's no wonder that aviation inspectors are gravely concerned about SMS.

We commissioned Pollara to survey our members about SMS. More than 65% completed the online survey, which was conducted between January 26 and February 2.The most shocking result is that three-quarters of our inspectors believe that a major accident is likely or very likely to occur in the near future, and 60% believe Transport Canada's SMS will actually increase this likelihood.

The survey also found that 80% believe SMS will prevent them from addressing and correcting safety problems before they happen; 67% believe Transport Canada's SMS will result in a higher level of risk in Canada's aviation system because industry cost pressures will result in safety corners being cut; 77% believe that the public confidence in the aviation system would decline with the awareness of SMS; and 80% believe SMS is simply a response to dwindling resources on the part of Transport Canada.

These sobering insights bring me to the recommendations I would table for your consideration:

One, urge the minister to provide Transport Canada Civil Aviation with the resources needed to oversee the industry properly.

Secondly, amend Bill C-6 to require that SMS achieve the highest practical levels of safety and not leave the determination of appropriate risk levels in the hands of the airlines.

Third, rescind subsection 5.31, or at the very least prevent the delegation of regulatory oversight activities to the industry for commercial airlines that operate for profit.

Four, add whistle-blower protection for employees who report safety problems and concerns to the regulator.

On this last recommendation, I am personally aware of the need for whistle-blower protection to achieve the non-punitive reporting environment that Bill C-6 seeks to establish. Last week a senior Transport Canada official called my office after learning that the CFPA was to testify and stated, “It will be a problem” if any TC inspectors appear before your committee to talk about safety concerns.

I don't know if Transport Canada is trying to limit what you hear, but I can't think of a better example of why we need employee protections. What if I succumbed to this pressure and decided not to give you the whole picture as you consider Bill C-6?

The travelling public will take the risk on this gamble by Transport Canada. It is up to you to decide if that is acceptable.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. This is meeting 37.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, November 7, 2006, our subject of discussion is Bill C-6, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Joining us today are Brian Jenner, Greg Holbrook, Brian Boucher, Robert Mather, and Peter Boag.

If you haven't been here before—I'm sure that you have been—we give you each a chance to present for seven minutes, and then we'll do a series of questions around the table.

Whoever would like to start, I would just ask them to please begin.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his interest and his research. I would suggest that instead of holding it close to his chest, as so many other members from other parties in the House do, he should provide that information to me. I would be more than happy to look at it, review it and provide it to the minister if it be appropriate. We are a government that is listening to stakeholders and listening to all parties because that is what Canadians want us to do, to work together. I would suggest that the member and all members do that.

I just hope it is not similar to the situation with respect to Bill C-6 which is in the transport committee, and Bill C-11. Bill C-11 was on the projected order for today but I understand the NDP put forward some speakers to try to hold up legislation again. I am hoping that we can count on the member to provide us with the cooperation that is necessary to move legislation through the House and to move in a way that acts in the best interest of Canadians.

I assure the member that is what this government will do. We will act in the best interest of Canadians overall, but we have a balance to strike and we will strike that balance for the Canadian public.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Wing, with regard to what you've already committed to getting for us, if you do find that there has been a decline in inspectors, could we ask you to give us some specifics, locations, some of the areas that are being affected the most by this? In which places are we seeing a decline in inspectors, and in which industries are we seeing a decline in inspectors? Because indeed the information I have seen in the past has shown the contrary, and I'm happy to hear that Transport Canada is not decreasing the levels of training.

In my regard, what we're doing with Bill C-6 is only enhancing the role of inspectors within the system itself, so I can only see them playing a larger role in this.

I guess I just have two more questions here. One is for Mr. Stoss. How does this legislation compare with legislation being presented in other parts of the world, such as the United Kingdom or Australia?

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am not a regular member of the committee and I am not aware of all the details of the Bill which is more the field of Mrs. Smith and Mr. Stoss. However, I understand matters relating to unions since that is my field of expertise. One always relies on the reports of others. In the present case, I represent an eminent colleague whose work is very serious.

My riding is in the north of Quebec. On a third of the riding, there are no roads. I have to rely on small airlines to go from one village to the next. I am talking about small airlines which, very often, are barely able to cover their expenses.

With Bill C-6, the airlines will inspect their own airplanes, which raises serious concerns for me. In such a situation I wonder if the inspector whose salary, even though very modest, is the only source of income will take the risk to tell his boss that there is a technical problem that has to be resolved before the next takeoff.

Furthermore, we have in our riding a company called Avionnerie Val-d'Or which modifies airplane wings with a technology called the Advanced Wing Technology. That business wasn't profitable and the company succeeded in getting close to 19 million dollars from the British Columbia government. Also, the governments of Canada and Quebec gave it more than 2 million dollars to build airplane wings. A pair of those wings was installed on a Beaver airplane which later crashed in the James Bay area. Fortunately, the two American hunters on board survived but, normally, in such a crash, they would not have survived.

I would like to know who gave a license to this company, Avionnerie Val-d'Or, to build and install those wings. Who granted it a license to modify an airplane which had been built on the basis of particular load specifications? As a user of small airplanes, I wonder if the company will eventually be found guilty and if the verdict will be sent to me posthumously. That is my concern.