Oh, oh!
An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
This bill is from the 39th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in October 2007.
This bill is from the 39th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in October 2007.
Lawrence Cannon Conservative
Report stage (House), as of June 20, 2007
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-6s:
Aeronautics ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
I would appreciate it if, in these last few minutes we have left here today, that the Chair could hear the speaker from Mississauga South. The speaker from Mississauga South has the floor and he knows the subject to which he is to speak.
As for the other comments, I would appreciate it if we could save them for another day, especially from people who know they are members of the government. Thank you.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
The bill has a couple of important amendments which I would like to read into the record. Clause 6 reads:
The Airworthiness Investigative Authority shall make available any on-board recording obtained in the course of an investigation of a military-civilian occurrence
Clause 6(a) reads:
to a coroner who requests access to it for the purpose of an investigation that the coroner is conducting;
Clause 6(b) reads:
to any person carrying out a coordinated investigation under section 18 of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act; or
Clause 6(c) reads:
to a board of inquiry convened under section 45 of the National Defence Act by the Minister, if he or she requests that the recording be made available, the occurrence did not take place in or over Canada and it involved an aircraft operated by the Canadian Forces.
Some implications still have to be reviewed and discussed and one relates to whether or not the addition gives more power to request flight recording if an accident happens on non-Canadian soil.
The proposed legislation would provide Transport Canada with the required tools to maintain and enhance the safety of the Canadian aviation system.
I think it is extremely important for Canadians to know that the Government of Canada in the last Parliament, over a two or three year period, spent an enormous amount of time consulting thoroughly with all the stakeholder groups. This is an extremely important piece of legislation and, quite frankly, I am pleased that the current government saw fit to introduce and reintroduce what was Bill C-62 into this Parliament because it is the right thing to do.
However to suggest somehow that the Conservatives did the work and they somehow put this bill together is absolutely incorrect. It is also incorrect with regard to Bill C-5. Bill C-5 was a reintroduction of the last government's bill to create the Public Health Agency of Canada.
I hope the President of the Treasury Board will rise on questions, but with regard to Bill C-2, which he sponsored, there are amendments to the whistleblower act. The whistleblower act was Bill C-11 in the last Parliament. It passed at all stages, had the unanimous consent of all parties and received royal assent but the present government has not proclaimed it. It is the law in Canada but it is not in force. The reason being is that the government wants to take credit for that as well. There is a little bit of a pattern here.
The changes put forward in Bill C-6 reflect new strategies being implemented to regulate aviation safety, including an increase in penalties that may be imposed under the act. I think the parliamentary secretary did a very good job in outlining that section.
The key amendments also include the voluntary, non-punitive reporting programs which would allow individuals and operators to confidentially report on a voluntary basis certain regulatory violations. This is an extremely important issue. I am sure that as we get into the speeches from other members that they will be able to amplify on one of these important provisions. It took an awful long time to develop the provisions of this bill which would meet the needs of Canadian aeronautic safety.
These changes are essential to advancing aviation safety, as we all recognize. The Liberals will support this bill. It was our bill, but that does not matter. It is not a partisan bill. It is a public safety bill, aeronautics safety, amendments for public safety. It is the right thing to do and I hope we have the support of all members.
There may be some modifications or amendments and that is appropriate. This is at second reading. We will have an opportunity to go to committee and maybe have further consultations with the various stakeholders to see if there is anything else that may have come up in the interim since the consultations ended.
The reason we are here is to make good laws and wise decisions, and part of that is to have debate and informed debate, not to somehow suggest that someone has good ideas and someone else does not. That is not the case. It just happens to be a bill that was in process in the Parliament of Canada. It is the right thing to do to have brought it back and I thank the government for bringing this bill back to the floor of Parliament so that we can deal with this important public safety issue.
The introduction of the amendments in the Aeronautics Act is a culmination of these extensive consultations. I hope the Minister of Transport will ensure that we have the necessary consultations or final consultations through the committee process and that they are open to any amendments that may come forward to further enhance and improve the bill.
The Canadian Aviation Regulatory Advisory Council's primary objective is to assess and recommend potential regulatory changes through cooperative rule making activities concerning Transport Canada's civil aviation regulatory mandate.
We are quite happy that this bill has been brought forward. We want to continue to participate as much as necessary to ensure that the bill is as good as it possibly can be. I am sure the government will recognize that it was the work of parliamentarians not just in this Parliament but in the past Parliament as well and regardless of party, there should be no shame in saying that we did good work in the last Parliament.
Aeronautics ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau
When the House next considers Bill C-6, there will be 10 minutes left in the hon. member's time.
It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. Monday, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)
The House resumed from May 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I started this speech last June I believe and I do not intend to speak very long. I am not sure whether there will be other speakers. I would like to compliment the former minister of transport who brought in Bill C-62 over a year ago and which has now been reintroduced.
After years of consultations with stakeholders it was noted that we would do the following: first, we would implement new strategies to regulate aviation safety; second, we would increase penalties for violations under the act; and third, modernize the act to meet the needs of the aviation community.
A press release from the Minister of Transport stated:
The proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act reflect new strategies being implemented to regulate aviation safety, including an increase in penalties that may be imposed under the act. Key amendments would also allow individuals and operators to confidentially report, on a voluntary basis, less safety-critical regulatory violations.
If we look back at the record of this Parliament, we would find that a number of the bills that are being tabled in the House are in fact the reintroduction of bills that were introduced by the previous Liberal government. That bodes well. Parliament is working and will continue the important legislation that is in the best interests of all Canadians.
There are two proposed amendments to this bill. The first amendment would allow individuals and operators to confidentially report on a voluntary basis what is described as a “less safety critical regulatory violation”. I am not sure that we have the assurance of the minister as to what constitutes a less safety critical regulatory violation. I am going to be interested to hear more on this subject. If they are not serious violations, why do they have to be confidential? There are some questions here. We want to know if there will be an opportunity for members of Parliament to be briefed on a number of such reports and their nature.
The second amendment would allow the Canadian government to obtain information through any air accidents that happen outside of Canada through new and expanded powers being allotted to the military and to the Minister of National Defence. In the interests of transparency, I am wondering what checks and balances will be on these new powers?
We are paving the way to ensuring that all the information is available to authorities, especially in tragic accidents. There is a balance to be struck. We on this side of the House would like the Minister of Transport and the Minister of National Defence to take some time to assure us that measures are in place to ensure that these powers will be strictly adhered to. We also expect that there will be a report to parliamentarians in any case where this amendment comes into play and has to be exercised.
As a result of all the hard work of the former minister of transport in creating this legislation, we will be supporting it. We hope the government will uphold the spirit of this legislation.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, the question I will ask my colleague is a simple one.
The effect of this bill will be to institute what the government and Transport Canada call a new monitoring system, a management system that will assign responsibility for ensuring safety to the airlines, which will have to regulate themselves.
I would like my colleague to explain how this will be safer than it is now. As we speak, inspectors and pilot inspectors are doing inspections, without warning, to ascertain whether airlines are complying with the rules.
Now, a management system is being created that will have the industry regulating itself. Ultimately, the industry is to discipline itself when it comes to monitoring and ensuring the safety of the industry.
I would like my colleague to explain how this will be better than what is done today. As we speak, inspectors and pilot inspectors are carrying out completely unscheduled inspections. They arrive without notice to check the condition of the aircraft, the quality of the piloting, etc. This is to be replaced by a system managed by the industry itself. I would like my colleague to explain how this will be better than what is done at present.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member has asked a very good question.
Very simply, we can state that the new powers and duties will be comparable to those exercised by the Transportation Safety Board investigators examining civilian accidents. If he is interested in how this bill brings that closer in terms of the level and the quality of the work done, the bill includes: the status of the Airworthiness Investigative Authority making available any on-board recording obtained in the course of an investigation of a military-civilian occurrence; a coroner who requests access to it for the purpose of the investigation that the coroner is conducting; and to any person carrying out the coordinated investigation under section 18 of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act; or, finally, to a board of inquiry convened under section 45 of the National Defence Act by the minister, if he or she requests a recording be made available, the occurrence did not take place in or over Canada and it involved an aircraft operated by the Canadian Forces.
The bottom line is that it basically harmonizes the provisions that we see under the investigations of civilian accidents with those now being referred to in this bill.
The House resumed from November 1, consideration of the motion that Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-6.
Since I am the first to speak to this next wave of discussions on Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, I will read the summary of the bill found on the inside of the cover page. The summary states:
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—
The summary outlines the content of the bill. First off, I will try to convey to the hon. members why the Bloc Québécois will not vote in favour of the bill as originally tabled. We will certainly have ideas to share at committee. Bills can always be improved at committee. The Bloc Québécois will make sure that significant changes are made to this bill at committee to make it acceptable.
As it stands, all it basically does is put in place a safety management system. As attractive as it might appear at first glance, what this system really does is make airlines responsible for enforcing regulations in lieu of federal officials, as is currently the case.
To paraphrase what the member said earlier, it is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. That is really the message the Bloc Québécois wishes to convey. Establishing a safety management system may indeed sound good. There are other examples around the world of such systems being established, but not under economic conditions like the ones that saw the Liberal government make cuts after cuts in Canada. Now the Conservative government has taken over. I am not sure that the Conservative members got the gist of this bill which, at any rate, is not new, given that the minority Conservative government saw fit to borrow it from the former Liberal government.
This bill follows on the study by Transport Canada which launched Flight 2005 in 1999. Transport Canada's initiative was designed to establish in Canada this safety management system that was already in use in other countries around the world. This was 1999, long before the events of September 11, 2001. The bill before us today comes out of a 1999 study by Transport Canada and examples from other countries. Such a safety management system was supposed to get rid of federal officials by having the airline industry self-regulate.
The current Bill C-6 has a history. Following the Flight 2005 study carried out by Transport Canada in 1999, Bill S-33 was developed and introduced in the Senate in May 2005. It was then withdrawn. We do not know why the bill was withdrawn, but it was probably for the same reasons we are suggesting today.
The government had the same problem because of the events of September 2001, but the project was revived in September 2005 and became Bill C-62, which died on the order paper because of the elections. The Conservative Party brought it back, probably because it did not have enough bills. This can be construed from the way it is proceeding. The Conservatives needed something other than law and order. Thirty per cent of their bills are about law and order. They needed other kinds of bills. So they dusted off Bill C-62 and called it Bill C-6.
I am not sure the Conservatives are aware of the contents of Bill C-26 before us.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I would like to thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan who has informed me that it is actually Bill C-6.
I would note that my colleague from Alfred-Pellan is on the committee. His participation is valuable and he, too, will have an opportunity to ask the government questions in committee, including why it is introducing Bill C-6, which is the old Bill C-62, which was itself the old bill S-33, which came out of a Transport Canada study begun in 1999.
The department wants to implement a new approach to the security management system. It claims this new approach has shown good results in Australia and Great Britain. The idea was to correct deficiencies that Transport Canada might never even have heard of. The department believes that this initiative would provide an additional layer of security.
Transport Canada is trying to convince us that this would not change the existing system. An additional layer of security would simply be incorporated. However, we think that in the final analysis, there is a risk that the safety of passengers and civil and commercial aircraft users would be endangered.
Indeed, while this bill aims to implement a new safety management system and to allow employees to speak openly about how it is working, at the same time, it allows each airline to have its own employee training program, its own system for auditing the work of employees, their skills, and the equipment.
Clearly, this is self-regulation. That said, we have learned certain things about the inspectors, the Transport Canada check pilots and those who are tasked with conducting investigations. I will give some examples in a moment. At present, Transport Canada has an entire team that randomly and without warning visits airlines to perform audits. They verify that the pilots have the necessary qualifications, are capable of piloting the aircraft assigned to them and have adequate training, and that the airline is keeping up with the most recent industry standards.
In short, they perform random checks. Yet, this entire system would be replaced in the security management system. That is what Transport Canada investigators are being told. All of the Transport Canada check pilots are being told that, in the future, they will only be auditors. They will no longer be allowed to perform random monitoring or random checks. They will only be auditors. In fact, with this system, the airlines will self-regulate and the auditors will have to confirm that the airlines have implemented what they promised to implement. That is more or less the case.
Lastly, the bill would give accreditation and training authority to the airlines themselves. They will have to ensure that their staff is trained and that the equipment is in proper working order. Thus, there will no longer be an inspection system. The inspectors will become auditors who will ensure that proper records have been kept. If an employee ever files a grievance, quite a process must then begin. In fact, what this bill hopes to encourage is whistleblowing.
Often, the industry will spend as little as possible on safety. Voluntary reports will probably be made after an accident occurs. The employee will say that he had notified the boss, but that the boss had forced him to work. Now, he is saying that, in a given year, something was not right.
That is what we in the Bloc Québécois are afraid of. At the same time as the government is introducing this safety management system, it is dismantling existing systems and investing less in training our Transport Canada inspectors, the check pilots.
What tipped us off was not Bill C-6, but the check pilots—the inspectors— themselves. They came to meet with members and told them that they used to receive training. Every year, there was a minimum number and a maximum number of hours of training. For three years now, they have been limited to the minimum number of hours of flight training. These are the inspectors who are responsible for determining whether pilots have the proper training on all types of aircraft. We are not talking just about airliners, but about all commercial aircraft, ranging from bush planes to airliners. They all must be inspected.
At present, there is a system that ensures that the Transport Canada check pilots or inspectors, trainers and investigators are trained in all equipment and all new technologies and are capable of telling a company that its pilots do not have the necessary training or need to upgrade through ongoing training or some other means. This system is now being set aside.
I would like to read some comments from people who work in this field, including Transport Canada investigators.
In this regard, I would like to read a few comments made by those who work in this area. Here is what they say:
Transport Canada's investigators, through ... the vice-president for Quebec of the Union of Canadian Transport Employees ... said they fear that the government will, under the SMS (safety management systems), take advantage of future retirements to not renew part of the supervisory staff.
This process is already underway. These people are concerned because the government is telling those who are retiring: “Listen, you are going to leave and you will not be replaced”.
The goal is to take all those who conduct investigations and turn them into auditors. They will no longer conduct investigations; they will merely look at the books and check to see if the company is doing a proper job of monitoring.
A letter dated June 7, 2006 reads as follows:
—the Canadian Federal Pilots Association told the government that it objects to pilots' proficiency tests being conducted by the companies themselves, rather than by qualified Transport Canada inspectors, who follow the pilots in flight to assess their skills.
This is what the SMS are all about. Airline companies will be certified and will test their own employees. As I said earlier, this is putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Yet, this is what is being done and what is already in effect.
This is a letter addressed to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and it is dated June 7, 2006. That was not five years ago, since this was just done. The letter continues:
—Similarly, we learned that, in order to save money, aircraft are always taking off with less fuel (thus making them lighter)—.
So, in order to save money, airlines have this good or bad habit—if you are like me and you are little afraid of flying—of putting in as little fuel as possible to save money, because the aircraft is then lighter. The letter goes on to say:
The options available are just that much more limited, which means that, in case of deviation, head winds or delays in landing, the risks become much greater. For example, a transportation safety board document indicates that, in 2003, because of a navigation error, an aircraft flying to New Zealand landed with 359 pounds of fuel left, which is barely enough to fly just a few minutes.
The inspectors' reports provide such examples and that is why we need inspectors to arrive unannounced to carry out analyses and inspections. The industry wants to save as much money as possible and it saves on everything, even fuel. Planes fly with just enough fuel to reach their destinations.
When there are investigations, the investigators see that the industry is in trouble. The reason for putting in place safety management systems is that there are no longer any inspectors and the industry is self-regulated. The industry will dictate the standards to its own companies because the government or Transport Canada will have accredited them for that purpose.
This policy of having as little fuel as possible and of saving as much money as possible will continue forever. One day, a plane will not have enough fuel, there will be an accident and then we will question all these safety management systems that were put in place because there was a problem, there were no longer any inspectors and the government, during that time, tried to save money. There were fewer inspectors, thus less monitoring.
I do not believe that the Conservative members or that the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities have fully understood the implications of this reform that dates back to 1999, that is before September 2001.
I will close by quoting Grant Corriveau, a retired Air Canada pilot, in an interview with the Toronto Star:
All the new bells and whistles are continually pushed to the limit in order to become more profitable and to squeeze more airplanes into more airspace and then when something goes wrong, you have less outs and less room to manoeuvre.
He added that during his 30-year career, he has seen budgetary belt-tightening change the way pilots fly. Add to these serious examples the fact that airlines wanted to reduce the number of flight attendants and that the Conservative government decided to take a step backward.
All of these proposals are aimed at having as little security as possible, as little surveillance as possible. An industry that is constantly seeking to bolster its credibility should not be trying to do such things.
We would be doing it a disservice even though, on paper, it looks like a good idea to create this security management system and offload regulatory responsibilities, such as conducting personnel and equipment evaluations. It sounds like a good idea. The government would probably save money because it would no longer have to pay for inspectors, investigators and check pilots.
In the current climate of fierce competition, where companies are closing their doors, the Conservative government would be making a big mistake by letting them self-regulate and do their own personnel skills and quality control inspections. In Quebec, Jetsgo closed its doors about a year and a half ago, not 10 years ago. I am not just talking about large airlines. As I said earlier, we are talking about all aspects of commercial aviation, from bush pilots and bush planes to big commercial airliners.
The Bloc Québécois is against Bill C-6. The committee will try to improve it. We will have to ask the right questions and hear from the right people to ensure that we are not making a mistake by adopting Bill C-6 as written.
As I said, I am not sure my Conservative colleagues have understood. The Bloc Québécois feels that the Department of Transport's budget should be maintained, especially the funds for inspection. This is very important. We cannot leave passenger safety to the industry.
As I already explained, in this context of fierce competition, we are not doing a favour to the industry by making it responsible for its own safety. Transport Canada must maintain its staff of inspectors, check pilots and investigators, and it must uphold the principle whereby it may always carry out inspections and investigations without warning, to ensure that commercial and other airlines always comply with established standards.
Let us not do like in the example mentioned earlier and fly with as little fuel as possible. It was an investigation, an inspection which revealed that only the minimum amount of fuel required to reach destination had been put in the aircraft, thus jeopardizing passengers' lives.
It is often only for short term profit. The airline industry is going through very tough times and it needs long term support. The Bloc Québécois feels it is very important that the public be consulted. The objectives of Bill C-6 must be openly and publicly stated. Similarly, we should not impose an additional burden on the shoulders of small carriers. The bill does not set limits. Any airline can apply for certification. Clause 12, which amends section 5.3, reads as follows
5.31 (1) The Minister of Transport may designate, from among organizations that meet the conditions prescribed by regulation, one or more organizations whose activities relate to aeronautics to exercise or perform any of the powers, duties and functions set out in subsection (2). The Minister shall give a designated organization a certificate of designation setting out its powers, duties and functions and the terms and conditions under which they may be exercised or performed.
That is accreditation. This does not take into account the size of the business. Among the smaller airlines, those that are accredited will likely have lower expenses, and those that are not accredited will have to invest much more money, because they will be under Transport Canada surveillance and could be investigated. This is ideal, because it forces the airlines to always have the latest equipment and the best-trained staff. They will be less competitive and, over the medium term, will see that those that have their own service and have been accredited by the department of transport do not need to invest as much.
In that case, all these businesses will be forced to try to save money and obtain accreditation, and this does them no favours. This is why the Bloc Québécois will remain staunch defenders of Quebeckers and Canadians who like to travel by plane. We hope to maintain an adequate monitoring, investigation and inspection system under the responsibility of Transport Canada.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, the member suggested that it is better not to wait for mandatory reports. Have there ever been mandatory reports that were not filled out? If so, would the situation even be worse on a more voluntary basis?
If the aim is just to save money in Transport Canada, would the member agree that these inspectors could also make fees by inspecting private planes? I had a letter from a constituent a couple of years ago where he was refused these inspections. He had to go outside at a huge cost and Transport Canada could have got some money and saved the citizen some money.
Finally, in the north, having a large plane, say a 737, that carries passengers and cargo is instrumental in making it economical. There is no safety problem. There might have been a hint of a regulation that would not allow that. I am hoping the member would support the north in that we do not need a regulation that would make it uneconomical to operate in the north and it would not provide any safety problem but would be flexible enough so that those in the north could continue to operate economically.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, I understood my Liberal colleague's questions, but I am not sure he has understood the substance of this bill, which was concocted by the Liberals.
I understand that he is trying to save the industry as much money as possible, but as I said earlier, it does the industry no favour to reduce the number of inspectors to a minimum and cut their training and their flying time for inspections, as the Liberals did.
Imagine, in order to save money at the expense of safety, a safety management system is being introduced.
I would just like to point out that the opposite should be true. We should be able to tell the industry not to spend money, but simply to invest its money in the right place, in keeping its staff well trained and its equipment state-of-the-art. We will take care of the rest: investigations, inspections and making sure that equipment complies with new technology.
That is what we are offering my Liberal colleague. Clearly, the Liberals based the bill on what was happening in other countries before September 2001. But if the industry is to survive, the public expects more safety, not less. I hope that my colleague will follow our lead and that the Liberals will support us in making major changes to this bill in committee.
Aeronautics ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Bill Blaikie
A brief question or comment, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.
