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.

[John McKenna, President and Chief Executive Officer, Air Transport Association of Canada]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen members of the committee. My name is John McKenna, and I am the president and chief executive officer for the Air Transport Association of Canada. I am accompanied today by Mr. Mike Skrobica, our senior vice-president and CFO.

The Air Transport Association of Canada has represented Canada’s commercial air transport industry for 80 years. We have approximately 180 members engaged in commercial aviation operating in every region of Canada and providing service to a large majority of the more than 600 airports in the country.

Our members include large airlines, regional airlines, commuter operators, air taxis, aviation educational organizations, and flights schools. Our membership also includes the air industry support sector involved in all aspects of the aviation support industry. We refer to them as Industry Partners.

We really appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to address the important aspects of our industry that you have undertaken to study. The transportation of dangerous goods is an area where the airline industry has been most progressive for a very long time due to the obvious potential adverse impact on airline operations.

I will focus my comments on safety management systems. However, I will gladly answer questions on either dangerous goods or SMS.

The implementation of SMS was to be facilitated by amendments to the Aeronautics Act. Bill C-6 and Bill C-7 were tabled respectively in 2006 and 2007. Key proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act included the following: provisions to ensure employees of Canadian air carriers report safety concerns voluntarily without fear of legal or disciplinary actions, or what has been referred to as the non-punitive clause; provisions to allow for more self-regulation in low-risk areas of the Aeronautics Act, thus allowing the better use of Transport Canada resources for those areas of higher risk; additional tools for the Minister of Transport to ensure compliance; and increased penalties for contraventions.

The House of Commons was adjourned or prorogued before either of these two bills could be tabled for final reading. The amendments were on the table when the larger air carriers were involved in the collaborative development of Safety Management Systems and were supposed to help its implementation both at Transport Canada and with operators.

ATAC is convinced that SMS yields both a safety and financial return. It is, however, a considerable investment regardless of the size of the carrier's operations. Larger carriers designated as 705 operators in the Canadian air regulations tell us today that they wouldn't do without SMS, but all agree that they had underestimated the task at hand when they started its implementation.

In its 2012 watch list, the Transportation Safety Board showed that from 2001 to 2010 the 703 category—the air taxi operators—had incurred many more accidents and many more fatalities than the commuter operators—704—and the airline operators combined. During that decade, TSB numbers show that in the 703 category, 359 accidents resulted in 132 fatalities, whereas the commuter ops and the airline operators had reported 44 accidents and zero fatalities.

Canadian regulations mandating SMS have been in place since 2006, but so far only the 705 operators—the airlines—and the approved maintenance organizations that support them are obliged to implement a fully compliant SMS. ATAC wants to encourage and facilitate implementation of SMS for all commercial operators. We are very conscious of the fact that the SMS model that Transport Canada has approved for the 705 level is not reasonable for implementation by the smaller operators. In addition, the air transport industry has been getting mixed messages from within Transport Canada as to the future of full implementation of SMS throughout our industry.

Consequently, we have developed the ATAC SMS Tool Kit and Guide. This innovative tool, designed to help small and medium-sized operators develop, implement and maintain a compliant SMS, was distributed free of charge to all our members.

We spent over one year on the investigation into determining the type of appropriate SMS and subsequently developing the necessary tools and services required to help the small and medium-sized operators.

Our challenge was twofold. The first was to design an SMS model that would meet Transport Canada's requirements; the second was to come up with a model which would be accepted by the intended users that is commensurate with the size and complexity of their operations and that provides an operational and efficiency improvement.

Large organizations accumulate and report colossal volumes of complex data. Organizational size and complexity and cultural change challenges would make it difficult for these organizations to implement reactive and proactive SMS processes simultaneously. Smaller organizations need to efficiently identify and meet the needs of the regulatory requirements by clearly identifying safety critical information as being different from nice-to-know information. This ultimately reduces the complexity of many of the processes, procedures, and subsystems of an SMS. Not separating business goals from safety goals simplifies and supports the cultural change necessary for the good implementation of an SMS.

The risk management system is the procedural meat of an SMS. The organization's safety oversight system is its risk management system. It is made up of four distinct processes: reporting, investigation and analysis, corrective action development and implementation, and the measurement of effectiveness.

One must avoid confusing Transport Canada's responsibility for safety oversight with an organization's obligation to meet the safety oversight requirements of an SMS. While impossible to achieve in any organization, freedom from error is even more difficult to achieve in smaller organizations in Canada. They generally employ a wide spectrum of experienced personnel, from neophytes to experts, operate the least sophisticated and often older equipment, and operate in the least technically sophisticated and, therefore, potentially higher risk environment. Given this reality and TC's regulatory requirement to create an SMS commensurate with the size and complexity of an organization, the goal is to provide verifiable insurance that operations are safe.

I conclude by repeating that ATAC firmly believes that safety management systems offer both safety and a financial benefit. SMS must be a major element of any air carrier's corporate culture for SMS to be fully functional and yield the many benefits it offers. The key message from Transport Canada as to the implementation of SMS in all segments of the air transport industry must be clear. We at ATAC want to help operators welcome this vital element into their corporate culture and day-to-day operations.

Thank you.

A safety management system is not just a strategic document. It is the implementation of an even greater safety culture. The plan, and its supporting processes, is the way an organization sets itself up and runs its day-to-day operations.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you again, Mr. Chair.

This amendment will give parliamentarians the authority to review the regulations created by Bill C-33 if needed. We had similar amendments done in this committee for Bill C-6 and also for Bill C-9.

Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate Term Limits)

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of addressing the House today on the issue of Senate reform and specifically with respect to Bill C-10. I would like to state that I do support Senate reform. I do support sending this bill to committee so that the issue can be studied in full. However, any type of Senate reform must be logical, democratic and constitutional. I do not believe that this bill fits any of those three criteria.

Why has there been no consultation with the provinces at all by the government? The Conservative Party espouses provincial rights. The Conservative Party talks about that and tries to compare and contrast with other parties. Why has the Conservative government ignored provincial rights? Why have the Conservatives not consulted them? Why is this bill so urgent that the government cannot consult the provinces in circumstances where it had a virtually identical bill, Bill S-7, that was introduced prior to prorogation?

The Conservatives had no difficulty suspending Parliament and killing that bill through prorogation, yet they must now take the position that this is so urgent that, although they killed the bill through prorogation, they now do not have time to consult the provinces with respect to this bill. I think that is wrong.

If the government does not even know if the provinces will support any amendments, notwithstanding what the government is trying to do, or if the provinces are prepared to support amendments, what type they would be, why are we taking the time of the House of Commons to deal with this? Should we not first know that the provinces will support this?

In order to get a meaningful constitutional amendment through, which I believe is what needs to occur and not simply this bill, we need the support of 50% of the population representing at least seven provinces. Even on a basis of good faith, I would like to know why the government has not taken the time to consult with the provinces to see whether there is that form of support across the country for this.

I mentioned three criteria. One criterion is democracy. Whenever somebody talks about Senate reform, they assume that they are proposing something that should be followed or that there is some urgent need for it. If we are going to do this, we should not make the situation worse. My fear is that an eight-year term would be a risk to democracy, not a benefit.

Various people have thought about this. The Senate is supposed to be a chamber of sober second thought. In order to get that, we need people with some institutional memory and experience who have been around for a reasonable period of time. More than that, we need to consider what they will do when they are there.

I would refer to an article written by David Akin which appeared in the press a couple of weeks ago. There are arguments against the eight-year term. The main argument is:

For example, under the terms of [the Prime Minister's] initial proposals, any Prime Minister representing any party would be able, over the course of only two Parliaments, to appoint – yes, appoint – senators to every one of the 105 Senate seats. Talk about a rubber stamp! Any semblance of the institution’s independence would be gone.

The first issue, especially in circumstances where we have had minority governments since at least 2006, is that it would be a risk to democracy to allow any sitting prime minister to, in theory, appoint the entire Senate through only two mandates.

In short, the Liberal Party is in favour of Senate reform, but we have to work in conjunction with the provinces to get there. We would like to know what our provincial partners think. We do not think it is appropriate to ignore them and not consult them, as the government has done.

In terms of the exact proposals, other comments have been made. From that same article, I quote:

The proposals by the present government, one to limit the terms of senators to eight years, and another for indirect senate elections, are not real or meaningful reform, in that they do not propose to alter the Constitution in any way. In fact, they have been painstakingly designed to avoid doing so.

If we are to have meaningful, long-term, democratic Senate reform, it requires consultations with the provinces to get that required 50% of the population with seven or more provinces, and we need to amend our constitution in a proper manner. Anything short of that, frankly, is unacceptable.

There is another comment in terms of Senate reform and limiting the terms. We already have the risk that we have discussed in terms of having one prime minister potentially appointing the entire chamber if the term is eight years, but there is another issue also. I would like to go to a journal article of UBC entitled “Transforming Canadians Governance Through Senate Reform Conference, April 18-19, 2007”.

There is another issue, and I think this is actually the more important issue. It is not so much what the terms are for the Senators. I support doing something about this. I am not against it, but once again, it has to be democratic, constitutional and logical.

The bigger issue is not the term, but the legitimacy of the Senate once in power, because as indicated, having reference to the United Kingdom's House of Lords, the issue is to keep the chamber bipartisan, so we actually get sober second thought, the main original goal of the Senate, and we have some check, some thought about the legislative agenda of the House of Commons. I will read from this article as well. On the question of legitimacy, and it is talking about a presentation, it states:

—stressed the legitimacy of the currently constituted House of Lords in the sense of broad public endorsement of an appointed chamber challenging the legislation of a popularly elected government. The secret, Meg Russell argued, was in the partisan balance maintained in an the appointment to the House of Lords, so that neither government nor opposition alone had the ability to control the chamber. Legitimacy came from independent—or at least bipartisan—action by a parliamentary chamber, not only from the mode in which members were selected.

In short, the problem with the proposal in this legislation is that in theory it gives the Prime Minister the power to appoint the entire chamber and there is no check on how that gets done. We need a method to ensure that the bipartisan, the rough balance that we have in the Senate, is maintained so all parties are represented and so it is not simply a government Senate chamber, whatever the government of the day may be.

If we deal with Senate reform and spend the time of the House of Commons and of a parliamentary committee, bring witnesses in and incur expenses, should we also not know that it is constitutional? Why is there no reference to the Supreme Court of Canada?

In 2006 the Prime Minister, when he appeared before the Senate committee speaking on Bill S-4, said, “The Government believes that S-4 is achievable through the action of Parliament itself”. This is not democratic, and I do not think it is even constitutional. We have scholars such as Alexandra Dobrowolsky, the chair of the Department of Political Sciences, St. Mary's University, who clearly says “that the failure to consult with the province violates the constitutional conventions”.

The Library of Parliament of Canada disagrees with the Prime Minister. I will quote from its writings on August 17, 2009:

There is, however, an involved debate as to whether the constitutional amendment procedures introduced in the Constitution Act, 1982 would allow Parliament to modify the main characteristics of the Senate without the consent of the provincial legislative assemblies. The Supreme Court has issued an opinion stating that Parliament does not have that authority, but the decision dates from 1980 and thus precedes the amendment mechanisms introduced in the Constitution Act, 1982. The question is therefore unresolved.

I do not think it is responsible for the government to go through this process without first consulting the provinces, as I have already indicated, but also knowing whether this is constitutional.

It is common sense to state that there should be a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to make this determination rather than requiring persons after the fact to engage in lengthy and expensive litigation to challenge this. I anticipate that if this goes through, some group will challenge this, there will be such legislation and we will be tied up. Why not, since the Prime Minister has the power, simply refer this to the Supreme Court of Canada now and seek a ruling?

There is a certain irony in terms of what is occurring with these proposals. I am going to read three quotes. The first is, “Only candidates elected by the people will be named to the Upper House”. The second is, “the Upper House remains a dumping ground for the favoured cronies of the prime minister”. Both of those quotes in 2004 were from the Prime Minister.

Another quote from the Conservative Party was “A Conservative government will not appoint to the Senate anyone who does not have a mandate from the people”. I am sure Canadians will find that most ironic considering what has taken place.

Another example from May 28, 1996, the Reform Party opposition day motion speaking to it at paragraph 3049, stated:

The Reform Party proposal for a triple E Senate, a Senate which is elected by the people with equal representation from each province and which is fully effective in safeguarding regional interests would make the upper House accountable to Canadians. Implementing changes to the Constitution to provide for a triple E Senate, an extension of Alberta's Senatorial Selection Act into other provinces, is the best means to proceed in permitting Canada's regions to have a greater say in Ottawa and bring democratic accountability to government.

What happened to that? What happened to the positions of the government members when they were in opposition? Why are they not fulfilling their promises in seeking an attempt to bring meaningful Senate reform to Canada with consultations with our provincial partners? Why this legislation in this form? It is not democratic and it is quite ironic that the government is doing this considering its various prior statements.

In terms of other broken promises, I already read the quotes of the Prime Minister in terms of never appointing senators who have not been elected. I find it ironic that a record was broken with the Prime Minister appointing 27 senators in one year. There have now been 33 unelected senators appointed by the Prime Minister, despite very clear promises that he would never do that. That must go to the credibility of the government. Of course this is not the only promise that has been broken.

We also had the promises of income trusts, the public appointments commission, to never run deficits, to follow fixed election dates, which we know did not take place during the last election, and to not raise taxes, although we have a huge payroll tax, which, according to economists, will kill 200,000 plus jobs. This is just a litany of broken promises by the government that Canadians frankly need to know about.

Since this is under the democratic ministry, let us talk about democracy. With the 33 Senate appointments that the Prime Minister has made, let us examine them. These were not bipartisan appointments for the benefit of Canadians. Essentially these were Conservative mainly defeated candidates. I think Canadians need to know this.

I quote an article, once again by David Akin, of January 20, 2010. He states:

There is an irony to the appointments [the Prime Minister] has made that is not lost even on some of [the Prime Minister's] own advisers and supporters. As a young Reform party organizer and MP, [the Prime Minister] campaigned vigourously to make the Senate more independent of the prime minister. And yet, to create the Senate he wants, [the Prime Minister] now needs a Senate that will do precisely what he wants.

With the five members he is expected to appoint Friday, [the Prime Minister]—who once said he would never appoint senators—will have named 33 senators since taking office in 2006...

Who are those people? He goes on to state:

In fact, 20 of the 33 appointees were failed Conservative candidates, former political staff to Harper or the party, or were members of the Conservative party or its predecessor parties, the Reform party, the Progressive Conservative party and the Canadian Alliance.

I think Canadians have a right to know who those people are. This is the lost: Bert Brown, Reform Party organizer; Claude Carignan, failed Conservative candidate; Fred Dickson, adviser to former Nova Scotia Premier John Buchanan, a Progressive Conservation; Nicole Eaton, writer and community leader who chaired the Conservatives last two national conventions; Doug Finley, Conservative national campaign manager; Michael Fortier, co-chaired of Conservative national campaign; Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis, former Progressive Conservative MP; Stephen Greene, Reform Party staffer; Michael MacDonald, Conservative Party executive; Fabian Manning, former Conservative MP, lost re-election in 2008; Yonah Martin, failed Conservative candidate; Percy Mockler, New Brunswick Progressive Conservative; Richard Neufeld, provincial politician active in social credit reform and B.C. Liberal Party; Don Plett, former Conservative Party president; Michel Rivard, failed Canadian Alliance candidate; Judith Seidman, co-chaired the Prime Minister's 2003 leadership bid; Carolyn Stewart Olsen, long-time Prime Minister communication aid; and the last, John Wallace, failed Conservative candidate.

In terms of John Wallace, I will have to admit I know him. He is a good appointment. However, did the Prime Minister actually ask Senator Wallace before he was appointed to limit his term to eight years? Did he know this was coming? Senator Wallace gave up his lucrative business to come here. Maybe he should have asked him. Maybe that would have been fair. Maybe that would have been trustworthy.

There is a history here. Why are we dealing with this Senate reform package now? Obviously it was not urgent, because if it were so urgent, the government would not have killed it by proroguing Parliament, which also killed the legislation. It would have continued with Parliament to ensure this was taken care of before.

We do have urgent matters, though, that the government has sought to avoid by bringing forward this type of legislation, Senate reform at this stage. I am not saying we should not do this at some point, but why now? I have made this point in terms of the law and order legislation as well. Although I support almost all of it, why now? Why not deal with the issues that are urgent for Canadians when we are living through the worst recession since the last depression? Why now?

I am going to give one example. I have a top 10 list here that, frankly, the government should have dealt with already or should be dealing with, which it is seeking to avoid. This has nothing to do with the recent scandals and everything that has been going through question period. It has to do substantive issues that matter to Canadians for their ordinary daily lives. They are simply being ignored.

I sat in the transport committee this week, but I am not on the committee. I was shocked. In questioning pilots, as one example, members talked about these new SMS safety standards. In 2007 there were amendments to the Aeronautics Act contained in Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act. This would have clarified Transport Canada's authority to regulate SMS, enhanced the sharing of safety data with Transport Canada and provided protections for employees who reported safety concerns internally under SMS.

The pilots who testified clearly stated that this was something they needed, that it was important, that it was required for the safety of air passengers across Canada. How many Canadians travel on aircraft? Yet it has not been reintroduced and the pilots, who were before the committee, want it introduced. Why has that not been done rather than go through with this law and order legislation and go through Senate reform at this stage? Why not pick other meaningful things that should be dealt with for the benefit and safety of Canadians?

As I essentially have no time left, I will not have a chance to go through the entire list. That is one example, and there is a whole litany of those that have been ignored.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I appreciate that. We're getting to a difference of opinion here at the table. This committee, of course, as you well know, took up Bill C-6 some time back. Three parties, certainly, were working to make some of the improvements you were suggesting with respect to whistle-blower protection or that kind of non-punitive reporting.

I will remind everyone, for the record, and for those who are watching, that of course it was the NDP that scuttled that legislation. I think that's an important consideration, because we were close to something that I think is very important in this particular area.

[Richard Balnis, Senior Officer, Research, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Good morning. My name is Richard Balnis. I am from the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

CUPE represents 600,000 workers across Canada, and our airline division represents 8,500 flight attendants at six airlines in Canada. In front of you are my remarks in English and French. I will deliver my remarks in English. In addition, a book of documents accompanies that presentation. Those documents are also entirely in English and French. The first part of tab 1 has the English, while after the green paper you will find the French. That document is entirely bilingual. I would like to go through my remarks now.

Since they were discussed in 1999, we have been and continue to be critics of safety management systems in aviation. Our submission and accompanying documents address the first point of your specific study into aviation safety, “Transport Canada's Implementation of Safety Management Systems for the Aviation Industry”, and “in particular the delegation of oversight and administration for business aircraft” to the CBAA. We are also prepared to comment on other issues related to flight and duty time for flight attendants, or other issues or questions the committee may have.

When the CBAA approach first became public in 2001, we said that this was industry self-regulation and it was wrong. The CBAA took over certification of business aircraft in January 2003 as a result of a ministerial exemption. We repeated our concerns about the CBAA approach when we appeared before you on May 2, 2007, during your consideration of Bill C-6, later Bill C-7. On December 28, 2007, we released 337 pages of documents under access to information legislation. We have since learned that at the same time that Bill C-6 was before Parliament, Transport Canada inspectors missed serious issues of regulatory non-compliance with regard to how CBAA was conducting its operations.

In tab 1 is our detailed analysis of those 337 pages. I have a set of those documents, which I can leave with the committee. They are in English only. I don't intend to create any controversy by tabling English-only documents, but I can leave it with the clerk if you wish to review it to make sure that what we say in tab 1 is accurate.

We also learned, as you can see in tab 1, that there were serious shortcomings in how CBAA was conducting its operations in other areas as well. Moreover, Transport Canada senior manager Don Sherritt overruled the inspector conducting this audit, who found that the CBAA corrective action plan would be ineffective in addressing these identified deficiencies. To our knowledge, SCOTIC has been told none of this.

As the Transportation Safety Board of Canada reported on its investigation into the crash of Tim Hortons co-founder Ron Joyce at Fox Harbour on November 11, 2007, “Transport Canada did not document its decision to close off the CBAA assessment even though the CBAA had not submitted an acceptable corrective action plan”. In tab 2 you will find, in English and French, the extracts of that report's conclusions. The TSB further found that it took another review, on March 11, 2009, for Transport Canada to conclude that the assessment it had conducted, which ended on September 21, 2007, had been “fully addressed”, nearly eighteen months later.

Fortunately, Minister Baird has finally agreed with us nearly a decade later. As he told media on March 16, 2010, “Right now it's self-regulation for corporate jets...”. Referring to the Fox Harbour crash, he said, “We learned from a recent report that it's simply wrong for industry to regulate itself”.

The CBAA experiment was therefore ended by Minister Baird. It is too bad that it took crashes for this ill-conceived policy to be abandoned. Unfortunately, one could go to the Transport Canada website as late as March 30--Tuesday of this week--and still find a 2009 “Safety Partnership Programs Framework” document, which we've included in English and French in tab 3, which allows similar adventures in delegation to industry and industry self-regulation to continue.

We ask that you recommend to Minister Baird that he cancel this policy approach as well. Let us learn from the lesson of the CBAA.

On the issue of government oversight in an era of SMS, which I think is the central focus of your deliberations, we told you on May 2, 2007, that Transport Canada was implementing a new diminished role for itself under its new SMS regime, contrary to established international norms. At that time, we quoted Transport Canada assistant deputy minister Marc Grégoire, who said that there will be a “shifting relationship” between airlines and Transport Canada under its new SMS regime. As he said on April 25, 2006:

There must also be a willingness on the part of the regulator to step back from involvement in the day-to-day activities of the company in favour of allowing organizations to manage their activities and related hazards and risks themselves.

Despite the claims that things were changing when Transport Canada representatives appeared before you on March 30, 2010--and some of those changes are overdue and welcome--there will be no change in this fundamental approach. If you do not believe us, look at Transport Canada's own documents dealing with SMS and government surveillance, which we've included in our documents.

On March 22, 2010, less than two weeks ago, Don Sherritt provided participants at a CARAC consultation meeting with the document found in its entirety at tab 4, in English and French. As you can see in the marked passage on page 3 in the English version and on page 1 of the French, SMS and performance-based regulations and standards will permit “each operator to manoeuvre within the designed 'playing field' based upon their targeted risk indices and safety requirements”. In our view, that is an unprecedented level of air operator autonomy from government oversight.

We were further told at that meeting that government oversight in this environment of operator manoeuvrability would be conducted in accordance with Transport Canada staff instruction SUR-001, entitled “Surveillance Procedures”, which is also reproduced in its entirety in tab 5. There are 66 pages in English and 72 pages in French. The fundamental premise of this approach is that government surveillance is designed to ensure that the operators have procedures in place to comply with regulations, not that inspectors will ensure compliance with regulations.

As an explanation of what you were told on Tuesday, if there are sufficient resources remaining, there “may” be other government surveillance activities to ensure such government regulatory compliance, such as the inflight or ramp inspections that were mentioned to you. Please, in particular, see section 5.0; that passage has been added in the last two months.

While this is an important addition to earlier editions of this document, there are still significant problems with SUR-001. First, these supplemental surveillance activities are discretionary and entirely dependent upon resources. Without adequate resources, these supplemental surveillance activities will not be done, although they are there on paper. Second, these surveillance activities are important in themselves. As you will see in tab 6, the Atlantic region of Transport Canada disagreed with the Ottawa head office approach of having only higher-level oversight activities, such as program validation inspections, enhanced monitoring, and assessments, because "they do not address day-to-day oversight of companies and do not include intelligence-gathering activities, which are important in providing data for safety monitoring". That is in tab 6 in its entirety.

Finally, in tab 7 we have prepared a case study of maintenance violations in 2007 at Southwest Airlines, a major American air operator. As that analysis shows--and if we have time in questioning, we can spend more time on it--it is only through mandatory, no-notice, and hands-on inspections, with effective whistle-blowing protection for front line inspectors who have to go against managers who may have cozy relationships with the operators they oversee, that the public's safety can be assured.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. We have other comments as well, including the lack of any flight and duty time limitations for flight attendants, something we have been seeking without success from Transport Canada since 1991.

We look forward to your questions on anything we've presented and on any other area that you would like to question us on.

Thank you.

Aeronautics Act

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that.

During the 38th Parliament, I think the committee spent most of its time on this legislation, and I congratulate the members for that.

We have a situation now, as everyone in this assembly knows, wherein a lot of the committees are breaking now. They are not working at all. A certain matter comes before the committee, it is moved, a majority of the members of the committee vote in favour of it and then the Conservative Party filibusters it or, in one case, the chair walked out. We had the Cadman affair and the in and out election scandal.

I assume by the end of this week we are going to have, if the situation involving the previous minister of foreign affairs comes before a committee and if the other situation involving the leak on the NAFTA issue during the democratic primaries in the United States comes before the committee, two additional committees in the House dysfunctional.

However, going back to the legislation, this is a complex change in the whole system of aeronautic oversight, bringing us in line with emerging international standards, standards, which are mandated by the International Civil Aviation Organization. It states that each member country must establish a safety management system. I believe those systems have to be in place by the year 2009. Under that general oversight system, each company must implement a safety management system that is acceptable to the regulatory body in that country.

Work has been ongoing. This is not starting now. I believe the Department of Transport started it at least five years ago. Initial work went on. Some pilot projects with certain companies in certain regions were implemented. It is an ongoing process.

The Office of the Auditor General did an extensive performance audit on this work. It was released in the March 2008 report of the Auditor General. I believe five recommendations were made to the Department of Transport. I would not consider that a bad report. I would not consider it a good report. However, it did make some good recommendations as to this ongoing work, which is basically a change in the safety methodology as to how the Department of Transport undergoes it.

However, as I pointed out previously, the bill has been with this assembly for three years now, in various forms. The committee listened to the stakeholders and it deliberated and debated every aspect of the bill over what I consider to be a very extended period of time. Prior to prorogation, when the bill, at that time was known as Bill C-6, the committee began hearings on February 12, 2007, and concluded in June of that year, after devoting 17 meetings to the legislation.

In the 38th Parliament, it was the single piece of legislation to which the committee devoted the largest amount of time, which is apparently a rush job. Again, I want congratulate the committee for the excellent work it did on the legislation.

The committee during its hearings heard from the International Civil Aviation Organization, Transport Canada, the Department of National Defence, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, the Air Transport Association of Canada, the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, the Air Canada Pilots Association, the Canadian Business Aviation Association, airline companies both big and small, Teamsters Canada, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees, Justice Virgil Moshansky from the Dryden air crash review, and the list goes on.

After these presentations, amendments were made to Bill C-7 by all members and a majority of these amendments were passed in committee, based on the testimony that came forward from the many stakeholders and other witnesses, who presented before the committee.

Some of the key amendments to the bill made by the committee were: providing a definition to explain safety management system and updating the International Civil Aviation Organization's standards. There have been several amendments made to the Aeronautics Act over the years, but none of these amendments actually seemed to address the matter of bringing Transport Canada's standards and regulations up to the ICAO standards. The amendment was put forward by the Bloc, NDP and Liberal members of the committee.

Another amendment was having the minister be responsible for the development and regulation of aeronautics and the supervision of all matters related to aeronautics. Therefore, making aeronautical activities meet the highest safety and security standards.

Finally, ensuring that regulatory oversight is not replaced by safety management systems, so that safety management systems that have to be implemented by each company that operates in the aeronautics industry in Canada, whether it be the carriers, the maintenance companies or the supplies would have an additional layer of safety available to Canadians who use the airplanes.

The facts speak very clearly, the number of people using airplanes in Canada is increasing dramatically. I believe the last figure we have is for the year 2006. In that year there were 99 million passenger flights taken in Canada, which was a 6% increase over the previous year, 2005. Industry estimates indicate that that will increase by about 40% between now and 2015. There is a tremendous challenge out there for our regulatory authorities.

Back to Bill C-7. I submit that this bill was under extreme scrutiny from all members of Parliament on this particular committee. Safety was the fundamental question addressed by members on the committee when examining this bill.

The new safety management system addressed in Bill C-7 focused on ongoing improvements to safety measurements in the aeronautics industry. Safety management systems would allow companies to have an internal way of operating which will enable employees to report safety violations confidentially within the company.

I should point out that was a point of contention within the committee debates, whether it should be confidential or it should be open. Finally, it came down that it should be confidential because of course we knew that employees would fear losing their jobs or being reprimanded by management for reporting safety violations. That ties in with the recent whistleblower legislation that was introduced. These matters can be dealt with confidentially.

We do not want people to be allowed to abuse the system. If they were involved in any way with the violations of any safety code, we certainly would not want them being allowed to report that violation in a confidential manner.

With Bill C-7, Liberal members on the committee felt it was necessary to have an environment that would encourage people to come forward voluntarily in reporting safety errors, which would therefore create an effective preventive system against any future aviation accidents.

In addition, Liberal members wanted to ensure federal representation would always be present to guarantee the regulatory process would still be in place. A safety management system is not deregulation in Bill C-7. Members on the committee made certain when examining the bill that Transport Canada would have regulatory oversight of that particular industry.

That is why, in my humble assertion, this bill really ought to have received royal assent last June. That is why I am surprised to see the bill still here in this House. The NDP has now decided it is not willing to support Bill C-7, despite hearing a number of witnesses and stakeholders in committee and despite the desire of members to have this bill go forward in the House.

Committee members have done a good job. The motion we are debating today is with respect to Bill C-7. It is, in my view, just another attempt by the NDP to filibuster in the House to delay the bill, to see it not come to a vote. I hope it comes to a vote soon. I do hope that the House can move forward on Bill C-7 and allow all members to vote on the bill as soon as possible.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

So I was saying that the members in the House and those around this table are concerned about declining voter turn-out in the electoral process. We'd like to increase turn-out levels because the figures are constantly falling. We're looking for the reasons for that because we would like to provide solutions.

Mr. Van Loan's comment was really relevant. He said that, if the situation remained unresolved, poorly understood, that would undermine public confidence in the electoral process. That's one of the concerns of all members. We've previously spoken about that.

Mr. Van Loan also told the Globe and Mail that we had seen the consequences of that decision in the byelections that were held in Quebec in September. He also said before a committee that, when anyone starts ridiculing the established electoral rules, people begin losing confidence in their electoral system, and he didn't believe that we parliamentarians could let that be done without reacting.

That's why Bill C-6 is really of capital importance. There were some stupid things—

Stupid things were done during the election. People showed up with Darth Vader helmets to take advantage of what people perceived as a loophole or a poor interpretation of the electoral law. They made a mockery of the electoral system. In doing so, they have eroded the confidence of people who didn't do that, who had the good sense to not mock the system in that way, because they ask what's happening with the electoral system if it allows that to even occur. As I mentioned, this is a matter of concern for everybody in this room and everybody in Parliament, which is why we came up with Bill C-6.

That's why we decided to have official meetings here in committee, where the business on the agenda was to study Bill C-6 and to implement a solution as quickly as possible to improve the situation because that situation was utterly unacceptable. As I said, why aren't we on the right track? That's why I'm proud to introduce a motion to ensure that we are on the right track.

I quoted a number of remarks by Mr. Van Loan and my friend Mr. Guimond.

As regards the Liberal Party, I'd like to talk about the opinion of the leader of the official opposition, Stéphane Dion, on veiled voters. This comes from a September Canadian Press article stating that Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion is of the same view and that, in his opinion, it must be possible to identify people who are going to vote. The article states that Mr. Dion said in Vancouver that Elections Canada should assign female staff to the polling stations to identify women under their veils, something a man would not have a right to do.

Mr. Dion also stated that his party did not agree with Elections Canada, which he asked to reverse its decision. He added that, ultimately, a person must be able to be identified at the time of voting.

We see that the concerns are all well expressed and well stated everywhere.

One National Post article states that the Liberal leader, Stéphane Dion, whose party is having trouble finding support in the province, is also opposed to this measure. The Liberal leader says he believes that citizens are required to reveal their identity when they vote in an election. That's why he would like Elections Canada to reverse its decision and to require women to show their faces in order to prove their identity.

The words used to discuss the situation are strong and direct. I've made a few references to Mr. Mayrand's letter stating that Mr. Dion's remarks were not—

They weren't convincing enough to have him change his decision regarding veiled voting.

Stéphane Dion also went on to say that he had a real concern with the byelections. There were byelections at that time, so it wasn't just an esoteric argument, which we had time to consider. There were some very real byelections approaching in which people voted.

The integrity of the electoral process is paramount. If we want Canadians to participate in the electoral process, then we need to ensure that they in fact have a high level of confidence that the electoral process is sound. I would say that of all the laws we pass, some of the most important are those that concern electoral reform, because it affects each one of us, yes, personally.

But I don't think any of us here is vain enough to think we will be MPs for eternity. It also affects the future of our government. MPs come and MPs go. Even for MPs who have served for extremely long terms there comes a point when they go, and a new election determines who will replace them as MPs. If Canadians find fault with the system, then they aren't so interested in participating. Their skepticism increases--it does not decrease--particularly when they see a flagrant mockery of a misapplication of the law.

That's where Bill C-6 is important, because it directly addresses this concern, and it's a concern that was identified by many people.

Just to go on, in La Presse,

here's what it said: Mr. Dion also said he hoped that an amendment would be passed to have all voters vote with their faces uncovered in the next Canadian election. “There has to be an amendment,” he said. “However, that will come in time. Byelections are being held now. We want them to be held in a peaceful atmosphere. We disagree with Elections Canada's decision, but we respect it.”

He quite rightly put his finger on the point that this needed to change not just for the byelections but for the long term. He was recommending an amendment at that time simply to find an immediate solution because of the impending byelections.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I think we need to know that.

I would like to follow up on what Monsieur Laframboise and Mr. Carrier raised, which is the whole issue of safety management systems. I, too, am disappointed by the lack of rigour with which safety management systems have been implemented within the railway system.

We've had a lot of evidence on, I believe, Bill C-6, when it dealt with aviation safety. I think there was a general consensus, in fact an overwhelming consensus, that safety management systems, first of all, were good, that they were very helpful in improving safety within aviation, and secondly, they were actually working; they were achieving the results they were intended to achieve.

For example, the evidence before this committee was that the number of reported incidents went up by 400% to 500%. That's good news; it's not bad news, because we have more front-line workers reporting problems right where they're starting, rather than waiting until we have a huge incident like a derailment.

I didn't hear that from the testimony we heard on rail safety. I want to know why that is. I'm a little concerned about the fact that the only whistle-blower protection right now is under the auspices of the TSB. With the aviation safety management system, it was very clear there was immunity for the front-line workers when they reported matters that could lead to safety issues. I'm not hearing that in this review.

Perhaps you could respond.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your response and I do want to make it clear to the member that we would not have denied unanimous consent, because obviously making our statements in the House is important to all members. If there is a glitch with the clock, that should be corrected, but maybe next time we will do it through unanimous consent.

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-7. As we know, this bill was in the last session of Parliament and was then known as Bill C-6.

I want to say right off that NDP members were very instrumental and worked as a very tight group in the last days of that session to fight the bill and try to keep it from going through the House. It was at third reading then. I am sure that my colleagues will remember that we rose in those last few days and kept the debate going.

In the House today, I have heard a number of members raise questions about that. What is the NDP doing? Why is it trying to hold up the bill? Some members are saying that it is a great bill and it had a great hearing in committee, that all those witnesses were heard and the bill has been fixed if there were problems. As we know, the government is obviously supporting the bill.

The Liberals, who first initiated the bill when they were in government, of course are supporting the bill, just as they now support a number of things from the Conservative government, including the Speech from the Throne and the so-called mini-budget. It is no surprise to us that they are supporting the aeronautics bill. The members of the BQ also have been supporting the bill.

However, I do want to put on the record that the reason we wished to hold it up in June, the reason we fought it, is that we think the bill is flawed. We think the bill has not had the scrutiny it deserves. We have had repeated concerns brought to us, particularly by the labour movement, people who work in this industry and who have a tremendous amount of experience and knowledge. They work on the ground, just like the member for Parkdale—High Park said when she spoke about her knowledge of this industry.

I can tell members of the House that we take this very seriously. In our humble opinion, and we are one party in the House, we believe we have a responsibility: if we do not think a bill is good enough, if we think a bill is not right, we should not just roll over and let it go through.

That is why in June we debated the bill and tried to hold it up. In fact, we did hold it up. It would have gone through. Then, as we know, the Prime Minister prorogued the House. It is ironic. We are told by the government that these bills are so critical and they are being held up by the opposition, and, in the case of this bill, by the NDP. Yet it was the government itself and the Prime Minister himself that prorogued the House and in effect killed all of the bills that were before the House of Commons.

That was the tactic the government employed to buy some time, to see out the byelections or the Ontario election, whatever the reasons were. We obviously were not privy to what government members had in their minds, but the government itself decided to prorogue the House, delay the return of Parliament and in effect kill the bill in its former version, which was Bill C-6.

As we know, the bill has now been brought back. It is still at third reading. We in the NDP successfully put forward an amendment, or what is called a hoist motion, to have the bill sent back to the committee. I want to assure members of the House that we did so on the basis of our concerns. We did that on the basis that we really do believe the bill should go back to the committee.

It may well be that other members are satisfied. It may well be that other members think this is a fine bill and that is the end of the story. We do not. We think there are significant concerns that should be addressed. From our point of view, we are doing our job as parliamentarians to debate the legislation, to defend the public interest, to represent the public interest and to represent the interest of public safety, particularly as it relates to airline safety.

On the record, I do want to mention the tremendous work of our former transport critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. He almost single-handedly raised the issues around the bill and alerted people out in the broader community so they could come before the committee. He has gone through the bill with a fine-tooth comb, looking at the changes that are about to take place.

This is where we have a very strong difference with other members in the House. We think the changes proposed in Bill C-7,, the aeronautics bill, are not in the public interest. They will not improve and strengthen safety provisions in the airline industry.

We are extremely concerned that, overall, this is the beginning of a slippery slope. In fact, one might argue that the slippery slope began a long time ago with previous Liberal governments. They began with this massive environment of privatization and deregulation.

We know it is something that the big airline industry has long coveted. We are now in that environment where deregulation and privatization are the victim of the day. However, when it comes to safety, I truly believe that Canadians, whether they live in large urban centres and mostly access airline travel through large airports such as Pearson, Vancouver or Montreal or wherever it might be, or live in smaller communities and rely on regional airports that maybe do not have the same kind of equipment and technology that is available in the larger centres, absolutely rely on us as parliamentarians to go through this kind of legislation. If there is a shadow of a doubt that it does not meet a strong and high standard around safety and protecting the public and the people who work in that industry, I think they expect us to not allow this legislation to pass.

We are attempting to bring those concerns forward. As the member for Parkdale—High Park said, what is the government for? What do we do in this place?

We do many things. We all have issues that we represent in our riding. However, overall we have a responsibility to represent that broader public interest against all kinds of pressures, from big corporations, from offshore interests, from people who have an agenda, the CEOs who have an agenda to only look at the bottom line. Our job is to make those balances and to overall represent the public interest.

I want to speak a bit about the specific concerns I have about Bill C-7. I know they are shared by my colleagues in the New Democratic Party. They revolve around really three key questions, one of which is the new safety management system, the SMS as it is being called. The second involves the immunity for prosecutions from airlines that violate safety rules under certain conditions. The third is the heightened secrecy and the fact that there will be less access to information on the safety performance of airlines under this bill than we had previously.

It raises the question as to why. Why would the bill take us in that direction? I am not sure I know the answer to that, other than I know it is a really bad direction and we should not allow it to happen.

It is part of this bigger picture of deregulation. It is part of a bigger picture that the Conservative government has adopted; that it is better to have no rules, that it is better to allow self-regulation by industry, and there may be some instances where that is warranted. By and large that is not a good direction to take, particularly with the airline industry.

I will speak on the first point, the new safety management systems. This is at the heart of the bill we are debating today. We believe it will affect the safety of the travelling public and crew members.

New Democrats are very concerned that the SMS system is supposed to be a management system that has been developed to allow air operators to improve safety levels by building on existing safety regulators. We know Transport Canada, both in committee and elsewhere, has insisted that this new safety management system is not a deregulation, but we think it is. There we begin our entrance onto the slippery slope.

We believe it is part of a deregulation and a significant change for two reasons. First, there will be a new role for the regulator that will increase the level of delegation previously performed by Transport Canada and that role will be delegated to the airlines.

Many members of the NDP have spoken on this issue over the last few days. We are very concerned because it was a function that was carried out by a government department, Transport Canada. Even though there might have been issues and concerns over various situations that arose, overall one has some level of faith in a government agency performing the function of a safety management system.

To now shift it to the airlines and make them, in effect, self-regulating in terms of safety rules and self-monitoring is something we should be very concerned about. We need to ask the question as to where this will lead. If we allow this to happen in this industry, in what other industries or instances will it also happen? This is the direction the previous government was taking and now it appears the Conservative government is also taking that direction.

Related to the question of the safety management system is a transfer of the determination of appropriate risk levels from Transport Canada to the airlines. The NDP would argue that this is again shifting the rules and responsibility from a public government agency, which is accountable to the House of Commons and the people of Canada, to the airlines. The public interest becomes a little less clear . We have to question whether that shift in the safety management system will mean that there is a greater interest in terms of what the interests are of the private shareholders. Those are very serious questions.

I was not in the committee, and I will be the first to say that. The member for Burnaby—New Westminster was. After speaking with him, I know that there were very detailed discussions. Witnesses came forward and expressed their concerns about this function of the safety management system.

I realize there are members in the House who are satisfied with what they heard from the department and what they see in the bill, but the NDP is not. On that ground alone, the safety management system, we are not satisfied that the public interest test has been met.

We are very skeptical about this movement of responsibility from the government to the airlines. We are also very concerned about what the consequences of that might be in the long term for the travelling public, as well as for people working in the airline industry who are all of a sudden in an environment that becomes a self-regulating situation.

It is more preferable to have an outside body that clearly establishes rules, regulations and benchmarks in terms of what the risk and safety levels are for people who work in that industry and who may feel the pressure from their employers to cut a little corner here, cut a little something there. There are those pressures in the workplace, so having the clear mandate of Transport Canada to lay out that level is very important for the workers in the industry. They have something on which they can call. That is our first concern.

The second concern, as I mentioned, has to do with what we understand to be the immunity from prosecution for airlines that violates safety rules under certain conditions. Again, this is something about which the public should be very worried. We need to be very clear that under this proposal, Transport Canada has not granted whistleblower protection to employees who may report that their air operator is not following the law.

I find this very ironic. The government brought in Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act. It was its first bill after its election to a minority Parliament, and the NDP supported it. The act was meant to be about setting out broad parameters and very specific provisions and regulations to ensure there was accountability, that there was whistleblower protection, that people could be protected in their workplace.

Therefore, it seems to me rather ironic that now under Bill C-7 we have a number of provisions that will provide immunity from prosecution. It does not have whistleblower protection, so that really creates a very uncertain environment for people who may be in the know. They may have information they think is important. They may feel they have an individual obligation to report violations or situations that are not safe. Yet they will not be protected.

We think this is another serious issue and flaw in the bill. This is another reason for it be sent back to committee.

The third issue has to do with the fact that there will be less access to information on the safety performance of airlines.

From time to time, we read about serious incidents that take place in air travel. It is something that alarms people.

Like other members of the House, I travel a lot. I mostly travel between Vancouver and Ottawa, and I do not particularly like using air travel. I do it however because I am from Vancouver and it is the way I get to work and get home. We have this faith that the pilots, the flight attendants and the ground crews know what they are doing, and I do. I have a lot of confidence in those people.

In fact, I was on a flight the other day, leaving from Pearson to go to Vancouver. We were zooming down the runway and about to take off. Just before takeoff, the pilot slammed on the brakes and it became clear we would not be taking off. Everyone was wondering what was happening. Over the public announcement system, the pilot said that there was something wrong. He did not know what it was so he aborted the takeoff. The 300 people on the plane were hugely relieved he had made that decision.

We went back to the gate. We sat around for an hour, which nobody really minded, because they were checking out safety provisions. In the end, the aircraft was grounded. We all had to scramble around for other flights. However, I was glad because I sure as heck did not want to fly in a plane that might be unsafe.

People worry about this. They rely on those professionals to make the right decisions, even at the last minute, even at the last second.

With this bill, we believe there will be less security on those issues. There will be less access to information to find out what is going on. For example, there are seven sections of the Aeronautics Act that will be added to schedule II of the Access to Information Act to ensure that there is no access to information. Why is that? Why would there be this shift?

I do have other issues to raise but those are some of the concerns that I put forward from my party and the reason we believe the bill should be sent back to committee and given a thorough review.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for talking about what is so important and so essential about this bill we are looking at today, Bill C-7.

I want to start by talking a little about my community of London—Fanshawe. There is a wonderful airport in London--Fanshawe, the London International Airport. It is certainly not as grand as Pearson or the airport in Vancouver, but it is a remarkable little airport inasmuch as it has an impeccable safety record. The people who work there take great pride in keeping the public safe and doing their job in an exemplary way. They have remarkable community relationships and have made it very clear that safety is first and foremost when it comes to London.

We have heard about the experiences of my colleague in regard to the tragedies that have ensued for the people of her community. We most certainly do not want these kinds of tragedies to proliferate across the country. That is why the New Democratic Party is opposing this bill. That is why our critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, has been so very clear and so very vociferous about the concerns here.

When we read through the flaws that he sees in Bill C-7, I am sure that all members of the House will agree that we need to take a careful look at this bill. We need to consider very carefully before we proceed.

According to my colleague from Vancouver, the bill is seriously flawed and still needs amendment. Among those flaws are those having to do with the new safety management systems, the immunity from prosecution for airlines that violate safety rules under certain conditions, the heightened secrecy and less access to information on the safety performance of airlines, and the fact that this information is out of the reach of the Access to Information Act.

That should send chills down the spines of everyone who has ever boarded an aircraft in this country or who is contemplating boarding an aircraft in this country. We cannot get the access we need to the information we need to know that we are indeed safe.

The irony of this, of course, is that we now have a government that is so determined to cuddle up to George Bush that it is willing to allow no fly lists. The government is willing to allow the Americans to have access to information about passengers who are boarding Canadian aircraft, but the government is not willing to look at the planes themselves. The government is not willing to say to the companies that they have to make sure the mechanics of the planes are absolutely safe, that the nuts and bolts and the things that truly reflect safety are in place.

As I have said, we oppose this bill. We have been remarkably fortunate in Canada, but the time is coming, if we allow this bill to go forward, when we will not feel nearly so safe and we will not be nearly so fortunate.

I want to give some sense of the background here. Bill C-7 constitutes what my colleague calls a revolution in how aviation safety will be addressed in Canada for years to come, not just right now and not just in the next few months, but for years to come. It enshrines aviation safety management systems, SMS, as part of Transport Canada's agenda to implement SMS in all modes of transportation, sometimes with disastrous effects, as is the case with rail safety management.

We know about the numerous derailments since the privatization of rail safety. We constantly hear about them in the news. We know that the effect is not only a human effect, but an environmental effect. We hear of trains going into rivers and trains derailing. The cost in terms of the environment and human life is simply not acceptable.

We have experience with the privatization of rail safety, but apparently that is not enough. We cannot seem to learn from that. We now need to take the next step and risk safety in the air. As frightening and as dangerous as a train wreck is, it is on the ground. It gets a whole lot scarier at 30,000 feet.

The SMS is also designed to help Transport Canada deal with declining resources and high levels of projected inspector retirements. I find it interesting that apparently we need at least 100 additional inspectors to ensure the safety of our airlines. I guess the Conservative government cannot be held solely responsible here. It is very clear that the Liberals had a whole lot to do with cutting the service sector of Canada and crippling those who provide services to Canadians, underscoring the fact that apparently the Liberals were not concerned about the kind of services that Canadians receive, including safety on our railways and safety on our airlines.

We need these inspectors and nobody seems to be prepared to ensure they are there. If they are there, then we do not need to rely on the industry itself being the arbiter in terms of what is safe and what is acceptable.

I would like to give the House a little history on the bill. Originally, it was a Liberal bill authorized by former transport minister Jean Lapierre. Apparently, after a 45-minute staff briefing, the Conservatives and the Liberals were initially willing to let Bill C-6 pass without further amendment. However, that raised a lot of alarm bells. There was growing concern and opposition to Bill C-6 from a wide range of witnesses who appeared before the standing committee over a series of many months. These critics, and this is significant, included Justice Virgil Mochansky of the Dryden crash inquiry; two Transport Canada inspectors; unions; the CSPA; the UCTE; the Canada Safety Council; some smaller air operators; Ken Rubin, an access to information expert; the teamsters and CUPE representing flight attendants; as well as the IMAW.

The criticisms from those witnesses focused on the unprecedented and unacceptable decline in regulatory oversight by Transport Canada and the greater ability for the industry to set and enforce its own safety standards out of public sight and scrutiny and away from the critical eyes of our community. That is at the centre of all of this.

The airlines get to determine what is safe and what is not safe. It is kind of like bean counting. A corporation assesses how much it will cost to meet certain safety regulations compared to the lawsuits that would ensue as a result of accidents. If the corporation deems that it would be less expensive to simply allow the accidents to happen and face the lawsuits compared to the maintenance and safety costs, it opts for the bean counting, it opts for allowing the suits to go forward.

I would suggest that in a country where we pride ourselves on the restrictions, the controls and the oversights that keep our people safe, this is simply not acceptable.

In the face of this widespread opposition, the government was forced to make some amendments. In other cases, the three opposition parties united to force these amendments on the government.

We saw a number of amendments in the detailed clause by clause. The new legislation required the minister to maintain a program for the oversight and surveillance of aviation safety in order to achieve the highest level of safety and a new legislative obligation for the minister to require that aeronautical activities be performed at all times in a manner that meets the highest safety and security standards.

There were many more amendments. An amendment was added to ensure that the Canada Labour Code would prevail over the Aeronautics Act in the event of a possible conflict. An amendment was added ensuring employees and their bargaining agents would be included in the development and implementation of SMS, something that is certainly not happening today.

After extended debate, the government was compelled to introduce those amendments, as well as a form of whistleblower protection for employees who report to Transport Canada that their employer is violating the law.

A new definition of the safety management system was put into the legislation, emphasizing a reduction of risk to the lowest possible level, rather than just accepting or tolerating these risks to ensure the industry does not accept other higher levels of risk in its day to day operations.

The government then tried to kill this bill in committee. It wanted none of it. If we look back at these amendments, they make perfect sense and yet the government was quite willing to kill the bill to get rid of these amendments, instead of having the concern it should have for the people of our community.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I used to work for CN 30-some years ago and I have seen quite a change in what I would consider the level of rail safety that has been deemed acceptable, and I am not quite as excited about those changes.

In fact, just removing the cabooses for the electronic light that was put on the back has taken people out of that particular venue of safety of watching what are known as hot boxes, and I am sure the member understands what that is.

However, coming back to Bill C-7, SMS is something like the fox watching the chickens because the hon. member is saying that the industry will be able to monitor itself and decide what risk is acceptable. I spoke on Bill C-6 in this House and every time members of this place get on board a plane they had better start thinking twice because this is a significant degradation of the safety of our airlines.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the common theme with all the witnesses who appeared before the standing committee was the concern that the safety management systems, the SMS, would be replacing regulatory oversight. Liberal members on the committee shared the concerns of the witnesses on the SMS and worked with members of the committee to ensure that management systems would not replace regulatory oversight and that the management systems would be just an extra layer of protection.

In addition, the Liberals listened to the witnesses' concerns on the possible reduction of aviation inspectors with the implementation of this management system. If Transport Canada was going to essentially diminish the role of the inspectorate or eliminate it altogether, Liberals would not support the bill.

Judge Virgil Moshansky, commissioner of the inquiry into the Air Ontario jetliner crash at Dryden, stressed the importance of the role of the inspectorate and the consequences that could occur if regulatory oversight is replaced.

Presently, it is my understanding from department officials and going through the bill clause by clause and adding amendments that the management systems, the SMS, will not replace the role of the inspectorate or eliminate it altogether.

Clearly, the committee had a sufficient airing of issues surrounding what was in Bill C-6, now Bill C-7. We did our work.

As the official opposition transport critic, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, offered yesterday in the House, we would be pleased to see a motion from the government requesting unanimous consent to have Bill C-7 passed at third reading today and such a motion would have my support.

As the opposition critic for the Pacific Gateway, which incidentally was also a Liberal idea that has been rebranded in blue by the current government, it has even used the same minister, I can speak to the urgency with which we as legislators must act when we commit to making such sweeping regulatory changes to any part of Canada's vast transportation modes and network, be they rail, port systems, or aeronautics, as found in Bill C-7.

While the benefits of robust measures to ensure public safety in all modes of transportation are obvious, the economic benefits that can be reaped by a streamlined and effective transportation system, with public safety as an absolutely essential component, cannot be ignored.

In the case of the Pacific Gateway, our competitors in the U.S. and Mexico are not waiting for Canada to get our house in order on transportation safety and infrastructure issues before expanding operations.

Embracing the unprecedented economic opportunities for Canada and the Asia-Pacific are not served by a prorogation of Parliament, which effectively slams the brakes on important transportation initiatives such as Bill C-7.

To repeat a point I made earlier, Bill C-7 sought to establish safety management systems that, generally speaking, establish voluntary reporting measures for employees and front line workers to report safety concerns to superiors in upper management.

Following the hearings, those witnesses expressed concerns that a system such as SMS should not completely replace ministerial oversight but instead serve as an additional layer of accountability, and amendments to this effect were accepted and became part of what is today Bill C-7.

This is an example of why I was insistent on such changes because they relate similarly to an issue that I have embraced, rail safety in Canada. The issues and concerns that have arisen in my home province in recent years following the sale of B.C. Rail to CN have brought to light many rail safety concerns.

Following a motion that I tabled at committee that was coincidentally passed exactly one year ago today, our committee began an extensive study on rail safety in Canada. It led to the minister announcing a special panel review of the Railway Safety Act. I testified before that panel in Vancouver. Unfortunately, prorogation of Parliament has delayed, but hopefully not stopped, our committee's report on rail safety.

In regard to rail safety, the Conservatives have not been open and accountable to Canadians. The Conservative Minister of Transport sat on results from a Transport Canada audit of CN for over a year. Previous Liberal transport minister Jean Lapierre, who had ordered the audits, had promised to make the findings public once the audits were completed. Under the Conservative government it was not until access to information requests and pressure from the committee compelled the government to quietly release the audit findings on its website with no fanfare, media advisory, or press releases.

Amending Bill C-7, the Aeronautics Act, relates to the rail safety issue. As in the case of rail, there is clear evidence of the need for an additional layer of safety reporting that ministerial oversight provides. In the case of rail safety, some examples of needed ministerial oversight include safety audits at CN which were ordered by the minister and conducted by Transport Canada, which brought to light many important concerns and section 31 ministerial orders that compel operators to comply.

In the case of rail, a system of SMS relying solely on employee reporting would prove problematic, as in the case of CN, because Transport Canada's audits as was revealed, there is a reluctance among employees to speak out on some safety issues for a variety of reasons.

Bill C-7, as reported back to the House last spring by our committee as Bill C-6, represents a balanced compromise, one that took into account a wide array of opinions from key stakeholders and cast partisanship aside in the name of public safety and ensuring a robust and successful aeronautics industry in Canada.

I encourage members to do the work Canadians sent us here to do in this minority Parliament and finally finish the work on this bill, so we can move on to other important issues that require our attention as parliamentarians.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the transport, infrastructure and communities committee to speak in support of Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

This was formerly known as Bill C-6 and Bill C-62 before that. It was previously worked on by the transport, infrastructure and communities committee. I am pleased it was brought back to the House and that our extensive efforts at committee were not wasted.

The bill deals with integrated safety management systems, SMS for short. It also authorizes the designation of industry bodies to certified 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. This enactment is a proactive measure to assist in preventing airplane accidents from occurring.

Bill C-7 is yet another example of Liberal legislation from previous parliaments being brought forward by the Conservatives, albeit with a new name and minor cosmetic changes. Under the previous Liberal government, Bill C-62 began the dialogue on the issues that eventually became Bill C-6 and now Bill C-7.

The transport committee worked well on this bill. I commend our committee chair, the member for Brandon—Souris , for his excellent work as a chair who facilitated an open and generally positive exchange of ideas in the committee. I suspect the member for Brandon—Souris was not one of the Conservative committee chairs given the secret committee guide book on obstructing and controlling committee proceedings, as our committee was an example of how a minority Parliament should work, and that is what Canadians expect of their elected representatives.

The opposition's approach at the committee table was clear from day one. Public safety was and is our number one concern, not partisan politics as we have seen permeate so much of the government's manoeuvring in the 38th and now the 39th Parliament.

In Canada today there are numerous safety issues that require examination in all modes of transportation in Canada, namely the aeronautics safety measures such as those in Bill C-7, rail safety, port security and safety and marine shipping to name a few.

An issue that gets little attention is the manner in which the Conservative government reorganized the committees after forming a minority government last year. Under previous Liberal governments, the House of Commons had a single committee devoted to transport issues, the Standing Committee on Transport, providing a clear and manageable focus for the committee. Following the 2005-06 election and for reasons that have yet to be explained, the government decided to lump several key areas together in one committee, namely what we have now, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Clearly there are numerous transport issues today in Canada that should be reviewed by parliamentarians. However, the government decided that transport issues should receive only one-third of the attention of the committee as they ever have before.

Coming from a municipal background, I can also speak to the importance of infrastructure needs in our cities and communities. To suggest that urgent issues such as the looming municipal infrastructure crisis deserves only one-third of parliamentary committee time shows that the government is seriously out of touch with the needs of our cities.

One only needs to look at the comments of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities on this week's economic statement to see the manner in which the Prime Minister has left municipalities and cities in the lurch.

Gordon Steeves, president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities stated in a press release dated October 30:

The government has so far failed to tackle this [municipal infrastructure] deficit, one of the most critical issues facing Canada's cities and communities, with a long-term plan and commitment.

He said further:

Today's actions by the government leave this [municipal infrastructure] deficit untouched and continuing to grow, and the longer we fail to tackle it, the greater the cost when we finally do.

Despite the cooperative spirit and hard work done by all members of the committee, it was unfortunate that the bill died on the order paper following the Prime Minister's decision to prorogue and hence delay resuming Parliament in order to ultimately force confidence votes on the opposition apparently in the hope of forcing another federal election, which Canadians do not want.

It is a shame that we are double billing Canadian taxpayers for work already completed. Instead, we should be moving on to other new issues, such as the renewal and strengthening of Canada's Railway Safety Act, merely an example.

The transport, infrastructure and communities committee performed due diligence on the bill. We heard from many key witnesses, as stakeholders, such as the Air Line Pilots Association, Transport 2000 Canada, Union of Canadian Transport Employees, Transportation Safety Board of Canada, Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, Air Canada Pilots Association, Canadian Federal Pilots Association, Helicopter Association of Canada, Teamsters Canada, Canadian Business Aviation Association, Air Transport Association of Canada, Canadian Airports Council, International Civil Aviation Organization, DaxAir Inc., Air Canada, Canadian Union of Public Employees, National Defence officials and Transport Canada officials.

The common theme with all of the witnesses who appeared before the committee—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-7, reintroducing Bill C-6 which we were debating before the House of Commons was prorogued by the present Conservative government.

After first reading and debate on second reading, the Bloc Québécois opposed Bill C-6—that is a fact. In fact, we had a number of misgivings about the safety management systems that would cover all aspects of safety and that did not provide us with guarantees that the scrupulous inspections done by the federal check pilots could continue. At the same time, we had a lot of indications to suggest that the number of check pilots would be reduced in the future.

I and my colleague from d'Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel made a serious and careful study of the bill. In committee, we held 11 meetings to hear witnesses from all the parties: pilots, federal officials and lobby groups. We also held six special meetings for the clause by clause study. After examining all of the clauses, we produced a report that has recently been tabled in the House, proposing 20 amendments to the bill.

Our concerns in the Bloc related specifically to the safety management system, and also the designated organizations, because we had no way of knowing precisely what their responsibilities would be in this system as a whole.

We heard the various parties, and even Mr. Justice Moshansky, an aviation expert, who conducted the probe into a major air crash. He told us that the clause dealing with designated organizations should be preserved, but narrowed. That is what we then did, taking into account all of the good comments received, and seeing clearly that this safety management system could produce good results.

It is important to note that opinion on many sides is that air safety in Canada is in very good shape, although it could still be improved. That is why, at second reading of Bill C-6, on November 7, 2006, the Bloc Québécois opposed the bill in principle in its original form. Not only did it not provide for improving safety, it ran the risk of having the reverse effect, based on the content of the bill at that time.

I would like to list a few of the main amendments to the Aeronautics Act proposed by Bill C-7. First, we are asking for additional regulation-making powers in relation to, for example, measures to reduce aircraft emissions and mitigate the impact of crew fatigue, and safety management systems for Canadian aviation document holders.

Another amendment relates to new powers, comparable to the powers of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board, to be assigned to the Canadian Forces Airworthiness Investigative Authority, so that authority can investigate air accidents and incidents involving military personnel and civilian business operators.

A third amendment would add provisions to encourage aviation document holders to voluntarily report their safety concerns without fear of legal or disciplinary action.

We would then like to include provisions for greater self-regulation in low-risk segments of the airline industry.

And last, we are asking that the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities be given more resources for enforcing the law and imposing more severe penalties on offenders.

The provisions of this new bill are identical, with a few exceptions, to those of Bill C-62. The majority of changes were proposed to improve and increase regulatory powers with the objective of facilitating the implementation of safety management systems.

According to the department, these systems constitute a new approach to safety. Rather than depending on surprise inspections, this new approach places the emphasis on monitoring the safety practices established by the airline companies themselves. For example, a company will implement its own training procedures for its staff. Transport Canada will ensure that these procedures achieve the objectives and are actually followed.

In addition, a voluntary reporting system provides a mechanism for employees to evaluate themselves, enabling them to improve and to set an example for their colleagues. Individuals will not be identified when the self-evaluation forms are made public, in order to allow staff to use this mechanism without fear of consequences.

According to the department, this new approach has had good results in Australia and Great Britain. The purpose is to correct mistakes or failings of which Transport Canada may never have heard. The department believes that this initiative will provide the assurance of additional safety because the company will police itself, even before Transport Canada gets involved. The department hopes to concentrate its resources on the most sensitive areas.

At second reading, on November 7, 2006, our main criticism of the bill was the establishment of safety management systems, or rather the fact that they were being formalized.

It is true that at first glance this mechanism seems promising because it enables all stakeholders to make a contribution toward the improvement of safety. To do that, it provides a certain immunity and confidentiality without compromising information currently available. However, those management systems could very well be a pretext for the department to abandon its obligation for monitoring and inspection so that, in the end, it would have the reverse effect of contributing to an increase in the risks associated with air transport.

Safety management systems effectively remove the burden of safety management from the shoulders of the government and place it on the airline companies that are told to regulate themselves. In the opinion of the Bloc Québécois, that does not make sense. In an industry as competitive as air transport, cost cutting is a necessity. Safety then becomes another expense that has to be reduced as much as possible. Without the standards and frequent inspections by qualified personnel, it is probable that the most negligent carrier will set the standard because its costs will be the lowest. From time to time, an accident will serve as punishment to those who go too far, just as one or more serious accidents will serve to remind parliamentarians that their role is not just to vote for legislation but also to ensure it is applied.

Since that scenario is not the one that we support, the Bloc Québécois has proposed amendments to maintain and improve the monitoring and inspection role of the department. Safety management systems will not replace the department's inspections and will be better defined and regulated. The testimony of Captain Daniel Maurino of the International Civil Aviation Organization before the committee on March 21 speaks for itself.

My colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel told him at that time that what he said during his appearance before the committee was important, and that his words needed to be properly understood. Captain Maurino agreed that ICAO advocated that all safety management systems must be subject to regulatory supervision. In other words, ICAO believes that an SMS is another way of ensuring safety, but we still need to maintain a system of regulatory supervision. When asked that question by my Bloc Québécois colleague, Captain Maurino responded in the affirmative.

The Aeronautics Act will contain a clear definition of a safety management system. It will make the minister responsible because “The Minister shall maintain a program for the oversight and surveillance of aviation safety in order to achieve the highest level of safety established by the Minister.” The legislation will specify the minimum content of regulation of the safety management system.

Concretely, the Minister of Transport could designate one or several organizations under certain conditions.

In particular, the organization would be subject to an aeronautical safety study, and the results of the study must show that its activities represent a low level of risk in relation to aviation safety and security.

Once a year, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities will table a list of all designated organizations in both houses of Parliament. Finally, the provisions dealing with designated organizations will only come into force three years after royal sanction of the legislation.

In the view of the Bloc Québécois, this amendment was necessary because, at present, Transport Canada is having some problems in establishing safety management systems. It would thus be premature to give the green light to designated organizations to implement SMS when the department was still testing them.

Captain Maurino from the ICAO summed up the situation following another question when my colleague for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel — who can be rather voluble —indicated to him that Transport Canada’s approach caused a problem for us.

I will quote the exchange between my colleague and Captain Maurino.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: You audited Transport Canada's operations in 2005. In March of 2006, after safety management systems were put in place, Transport Canada terminated the National Audit Program which targeted the eight largest air carriers in the country. This means that the eight largest air carriers are no longer subject to an annual audit.

I won't ask you a question about that, because perhaps you're embarrassed by Transport Canada's actions, but I don't feel that Transport Canada is being reasonable by terminating an audit program simply because safety management systems were put in place.

Would you agree with me?

Capt Daniel Maurino: Yes, sir. In any change there is a transition period. What is the safety picture going to be in 20 or 25 or 30 years' time? Nobody really knows. If SMS evolves to the potential that we hope it will achieve, there may be a scenario in which audits are no longer going to be necessary.

But we're at the beginning. I want to reinforce a notion that I have expressed already. We're talking about SMS as if SMS were a done deal. It is not. We're at the beginning. We haven't even landed. We haven't even started this campaign. I believe that what's going on here is the fate that trailblazers suffer, which is growing pains.

In many aspects, we're learning as we move, and we become wiser as we get additional feedback. What I'm trying to say is that this early in the game, taking any radical measures, whatever they might be, would be unwise. I think the elimination of an inspectorate force, audits, or other conventional mechanisms that have ensured safety in aviation for over sixty years would not be applicable until we are absolutely certain that what we're removing is being replaced by a better system.

I want to remind hon. members that Captain Daniel Maurino is the coordinator of Flight Safety and Human Factors for the International Civil Aviation Organization.

One of the Bloc Québécois' concerns involved the possible contradictions between Bill C-6 and certain parts of the Canada Labour Code. In court, the latter must apply. A number of amendments on this passed thanks to the Bloc Québécois. The provisions of the Canada Labour Code will prevail over the incompatible provisions of the Aeronautics Act.

With respect to protection for whistleblowers, the Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment to protect employees who provide safety information to Transport Canada inspectors in good faith. The amendment would prohibit holders of Canadian aviation documents from retaliating against such employees.

Amendments were also proposed to ensure that information used in SMSs, such as Transport Canada's audit and inspection reports, could be obtained through the Access to Information Act. Unfortunately, these amendments were rejected by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. As my colleague said earlier, you can't win 'em all. Once we see how well the law works, it will be clear what improvements are needed.

Even though senior Transport Canada officials said that these reports could be obtained, in practice, the legislation contains a list of exceptions that allow the department to withhold some information from the public. The Bloc Québécois would certainly have liked to change that with its amendments.

I want to emphasize that in the end, most of the Bloc Québécois' amendments to Bill C-7 were accepted, including the main ones concerning the maintenance of Transport Canada's monitoring and inspection measures and the monitoring of designated organizations.

These amendments make it possible for us to support this bill at third reading as amended by the Standing Committee on Transport.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support the word wrong. I think Bill C-7 is simply wrong.

The witnesses who came before committee, not the ones who were trying to promote the theory of SMS, consistently said that with respect to the actual practicality of its application, this was the wrong bill. The parliamentary secretary is trying to pretend that is not the case. It happened. Witness after witness said this was the wrong bill.

Two classes of witnesses appeared before committee: those who supported the theory of SMS but did not in any way discuss the practicality of what was in Bill C-6 and what would be amended in Bill C-6; and those who said the practicality of how this would be implemented would be wrong for Canada and wrong for air safety. That was clearly a contradiction from the very beginning.

Conservatives continued to say that people spoke to SMS in theory so that must have meant they supported the bill. Very clearly, under questioning from the NDP and from other colleagues in the House, witness after witness said that the practical implementation of Bill C-6 was wrong for air safety. That was the conclusion, and that is why we are voting no.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed with the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, because he is starting to make personal remarks. This is unworthy of him, given his past and all the work he has done in committee.

In many respects, we are the only adult party in this House. It is not childish to adhere to basic principles. It is not like the Bloc, which wanted absolutely nothing to do with the softwood lumber agreement and then changed its mind 24 hours later. The same thing happened with the Conservative budget. The Bloc was opposed to the budget, then supported it. The Bloc was opposed to Bill C-7 and now is in favour of it. They have to justify these flip-flops, which are clearly not in the interests of Quebeckers.

We always said we were opposed to the idea of the companies managing safety themselves. We always said we did not want to give in on the whole issue of access to information. We were firm about that. There is also the whole issue of allowing company executives to break the law without suffering the consequences. We always said were opposed to those aspects of the bill.

From the beginning, the NDP was consistent, at second and third reading. What I do not understand is why the Bloc changed its mind when that is not at all in the interests of Quebeckers.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my hon. colleague in the NDP. I really enjoy discussing things with my hon. colleague, especially this bill, because he worked very hard on it, just as we did. It is true that, like us, he voted against Bill C-6 on second reading. My problem is that things have changed and that is what my question is about.

I can understand some of what he had to say. We saw the amendments that the NDP proposed, including on the entire safety management system. It was no longer interested in the designated organizations. We talked and talked about it. We wanted to allow time for the designated organizations to develop, as I explained in my presentation. All together, the majority decided that they would come into effect in three years to give Transport Canada a chance to develop the safety management systems in the big companies.

When he did not win out on this point, he decided that he did not want to hear anything more about designated organizations. Then we talked about the voluntary reporting system on which the safety management system is based. We tried to work with him. But he decided that the voluntary reporting system should take effect in three years. The problem is that the safety management system is already in effect in Canada.

The hon. member is like a child who did not get what he wanted and so he threw a little tantrum in the corner. He is sulking now and it is over: he has decided not to support the bill.

That is why it is hard to understand. I would just like him to grow a little along with us and reach adolescence. He needs to understand that the ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, recommends that countries have a safety management system. Canada established one in the large companies and what we want is to improve it so that employees are protected. The hon. member fails to understand that what he proposes would not protect employees, would not establish the safety system, and would therefore make civil aviation safety less respected than it is now. I hope the hon. member understands that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to rise in the debate on Bill C-7, which essentially is former Bill C-6, which the NDP stopped from being pushed through this House in June for the simple reason that this is clearly not in the public interest. I suppose that is why the government is pushing this forward on the eve of Halloween. This is just another way to scare Canadians, the unsafe skies act. The government is pushing forward legislation which inevitably, even though it may save some costs to government, is going to make our skies less safe.

The genesis of this goes back to the former Liberal government that was trying to do the same thing. The Liberals wanted to do the same thing to airlines that they did to the railways, and I will come back to that in a moment.

When the bill was introduced in the spring, Bloc members and NDP members voted against the bill at second reading. The bill went to committee. There was a whole range of amendments, pages and pages of amendments to fix this bad bill. As my colleague from Eglinton—Lawrence mentioned earlier, some amendments were adopted. There was some progress on the bill. We managed to fix about half of it. We managed to shore up two of the walls in this crumbling edifice that is air safety under the Conservative government, but the other two walls are there and are ready to fall at any minute.

For any member of this House to come forward and say that we have shored up two of the four crumbling walls, so we should fast track this bill through Parliament, I say that would be irresponsible. There are two walls ready to collapse at any time. The Conservatives refuse to fix the many bad aspects of this bad bill.

Regrettably, despite the fact that the NDP put forward the road map to actually get this bill to where the Conservatives purported to want to take it, half of those amendments that were proffered by the NDP, sometimes in conjunction with Bloc members or Liberal members, were rejected.

What we come to now is a bill that has some improvements, but under no circumstances should it be passed or fast tracked, because it has the major problems that the former bill had at second reading. The Bloc members voted against it at second reading, as did the NDP. To say that somehow this bill has been fixed I think would be trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Canadian public.

Let us go through some of the problems with the unsafe skies act of 2007, Bill C-7. Despite the fact that the NDP brought forward very clear objections in this House, the Conservatives have decided to push the bill through. The Conservatives seemingly have the cooperation of the Liberals again. I do not know if the Liberals are going to vote or not. This time they may actually vote. They did not vote on the throne speech. Regardless, to vote for this bill would be irresponsible. Let us look at the major concerns.

I should mention that at the committee stage, major concerns and worries were brought forward by people who know the business better than anyone else. Justice Virgil Moshansky, who ran the Dryden crash inquiry, brought forward major concerns with this bill.

We had the inspectors themselves, the Canadian Federal Pilots Association. Who knows safety better than the inspectors themselves? They talked about the attrition and the downgrading of the key inspector roles in Canadian aviation, and I will come back to that in a moment in regard to Jetsgo of which many Canadians are aware. The fact that the Canadian Federal Pilots Association would come forward should be a red flag for any member of this House.

We had the Canada Safety Council and some smaller air operators that raised legitimate concerns about having to compete with other air operators that have lower safety standards. They talked about what that would mean both to their ability to deliver safety and compete in a marketplace where safety should be the first and foremost function of air operators.

The committee heard from Ken Rubin, the access to information expert. The committee also heard from the Canadian Union of Public Employees which represents flight attendants.

There was a vast array of objections to this bill. There was a vast array of concerns raised, and despite the fact that some of the amendments were adopted, we are still at this place where half of the edifice is crumbling.

We need to be very careful about pushing this legislation through. We need to know what the implications will be for airline safety in the next year or in the next two or three years. The decision we make at third reading of Bill C-7 will have implications for Canadians and we need to be very careful about voting for it. Each member needs to weigh what the consequences could be for Canadian families before they rush to vote through the legislation.

The first area of concern that has not been addressed is the whole question of safety management systems. This is an area of huge concern because we have seen what happened to Canada's railways when safety management was turned over to them, Canadian National being the best example with its CEO Hunter Harrison. He has simply put into place a system that, according to many observers, is fast-tracking profits at the expense of safety.

In British Columbia, we know this perhaps better than Canadians in any other part of the country. We have seen an escalation of derailments, some involving deaths, many involving property damage and environmental devastation, and that has happened since safety management was turned over to the railways. The minister simply does not have the tools to ensure that our railway system functions in a safe way.

What has been the fallout from that? In the Fraser Canyon of British Columbia, Cheakamus River and Wabamun Lake in Alberta, we have seen environmental devastation and deaths.

Bill C-7 essentially turns over safety management systems to the airlines themselves. For some airlines that may be no problem at all. There are many responsible airline operators in this country and they will ensure that the highest possible standards are maintained, but that will not be the case for all air operators.

I would like to read into the record one of the articles that came out last year in the Toronto Star, the Hamilton Spectator and the Kitchener-Waterloo Record about one particular air carrier. The headline reads:

Jetsgo problems ignored; Probe into death of the discount airline last year reveals major shortcomings of Transport Canada

National regulator was slow to take action as safety problems continue to climb, investigation shows

Transport Canada stood by while thousands of Canadians boarded Jetsgo planes amid a growing list of safety problems at the discount airline.

More than a year after the death of Jetsgo, Transport Canada insists it did the right thing in keeping the doomed airline flying and has not changed its procedures in light of the Jetsgo experience.

Jetsgo, which offered tickets as low as $1, had repeated mechanical breakdowns, shoddy maintenance practices, inexperienced pilots and midair mishaps.

Transport Canada, which is mandated to keep Canada's skies safe, knew of the problems, but for 2 1/2 years dismissed the troubles as the growing pains of a start-up operator.

Only after a near-crash in Calgary in January 2005 did it take tough action, but even after a special inspection the next month revealed serious trouble, the regulator continued to publicly tout the airline as “safe”.

Interviews with former employees, incident reports filed with Transport Canada and the Transportation Safety Board, and internal government documents paint a picture of an airline so badly run that some considered a major accident inevitable.

The Jetsgo experience underscores some of the major findings that are part of an ongoing investigation into aviation safety by The Toronto Star, Hamilton Spectator and The Record of Waterloo Region. The probe has found a system struggling to keep up with the demands of higher passenger traffic and a disturbing number of mechanical problems.

It goes on to talk about the problems of Jetsgo itself. It reads:

Problems emerged early. Three months after the launch of the discount airline, sloppy maintenance forced an emergency landing in Toronto. The pilots noticed they were losing the hydraulic fluid that helps run aircraft systems.... Mechanics had installed a temporary hydraulic line with the wrong pressure rating, and it failed within two flights.

The article goes on about other incidents: leaking hydraulic fluid; engine failures; and a clogged engine oil filter that forced an emergency landing in Winnipeg.

The engine had been left in storage and didn't get a proper check when it was installed, according to a Transportation Safety Board report.

The article talks about flames coming out of an engine on a Jetsgo plane that had just left Toronto for Mexico. It goes on to talk about emergency landings and about organizational problems within the airline.

This one article alone should be a cause for alarm. Why are we turning over safety management systems to the airlines themselves when right now the system is not functioning properly and another Jetsgo could arise?

What we are doing with Bill C-7, if the Liberals and Conservatives get their way, is turning over safety management, as with Jetsgo, to the airline itself. What is wrong with this picture? How many Canadians would vote to have an airline like Jetsgo, with all those problems, repeated safety violations, have responsibility for its own safety management system?

In other words, let us keep cutting back on federal flight inspectors and let us keep the attrition rate high so we will gradually empty those positions out and we will not have the same safety oversight when the airline takes care of itself. What is wrong with this picture? How many Canadians would vote for this? Virtually none of them because they certainly would not want to see a system where their loved ones are in increased danger.

Instead of going for lower safety standards, we should be looking for higher safety standards. Absolutely nothing in Bill C-7 guarantees a higher level of safety, not one line.

Some amendments take some of the most egregious aspects of the former Liberal legislation and current Conservative legislation out, but there is nothing that indicates a higher level of safety when we have SMS, when we have airlines like Jetsgo that are essentially given a blank cheque to run their own safety management.

Clearly there are many reputable airline companies in Canada that will maintain a high standard but there are companies that clearly will not, which is why the NDP will not support Bill C-7. We do not believe we should be playing with the safety of Canadians. We do not believe in an unsafe skies act. We do not believe that the federal government should try to cut costs through attrition of simply not replacing federal flight inspectors, but that is okay because companies, like Jetsgo with repeated mechanical problems, can simply run themselves. It is simply not okay. That is only the first of the three egregious aspects.

Let us go on to number two, which is corporate CEOs, for example, of the aforementioned company. They get a get out of jail free card with no consequences for actions that are irresponsible or detrimental to the public interest. Essentially it is a get out of jail free card.

We spoke out very clearly about Bill C-6 in the House at second reading, at third reading and in committee that we do not believe corporate CEOs should be let off the hook when the public is in danger. We cannot provide a get out of jail free card to a corporate CEO. However, that is what Bill C-7 does.

We have talked about the safety aspects and about this get out of jail free card for corporate CEOs. Perhaps the most egregious one is the whole aspect of access to information, the access to information that is in the public interest.

We just talked about some of the problems around Jetsgo. This came out after Jetsgo stopped flying but these were problems that Canadians needed to know about. When Canadians put their loved ones on an air carrier they need to know that air carrier is being run responsibly and it is being run with all due attention to safety. That is of fundamental importance.

We have problems now with access to information in terms of flight safety and knowing which companies are acting responsibly and should be patronized, the airlines we should be putting our loved ones on because we know they are being run properly, responsibly and safely, and we need to know which companies are being run irresponsibly.

We can imagine how deeply felt it would be to lose a loved one and to know that the government knew about those safety issues and safety problems but did nothing about it and simply withheld that information from the public.

In Bill C-7, we now have an extension of more than seven areas on access to information, the flight attendant, the mechanic. The consumers will no longer be able to get that vital information on the safety of the air carrier from which they are purchasing their tickets. Perhaps that is the most egregious aspect of Bill C-7. What we have now is less safety and more secrecy.

When the Conservatives ran for election in 2006, they pretended they would run things differently, that they would somehow be a new government and it would be more responsible. They said that there would be a higher level of safety and less secrecy.

In Bill C-7, we are seeing the same old same old. We are seeing a continuation of the old Liberal agenda that covers up safety problem, that hands over direction for safety issues to company CEOs, and now, perhaps most strikingly unfair, it give those same company CEOs a get out of jail free card if they choose to diminish passenger safety.

Those three fundamental elements are not areas that the Liberals and Conservatives were not in favour of amending and that somehow we have a bill that is almost right. That is simply not true. This bill is fundamentally flawed and wrong. It puts Canadians in more danger. It keeps Canadians from knowing the truth about the airline they are putting their loved ones on and then, at the end of that whole process, it gives the company CEOs for those companies that choose to be irresponsible to increase their profit line, a get out of jail free card.

For those reasons, we simply cannot support Bill C-7. I would ask members in all four corners of the House to really reflect upon the legislation itself, not the political spin but what this would do to our airline industry. This continued agenda to offload costs from the federal government and put them on somebody else's back is not really in Canada's interest. Is it really in the public interest? We say that it is not. We cannot pretend it is in the public interest. We cannot pretend that less safety and more secrecy is in the public interest, no matter how we slice it.

The issue is quite simple now. We have here, in a very real sense, tragically, since the throne speech, a functional majority government. The Liberals have simply given up any opposition to the Conservative agenda. In fact, in most cases, if not all cases, it is a former Liberal agenda that has just been adopted by the Conservatives.

Nothing has changed in Ottawa. We still have the pushing forward with the support of lobbyists for things that are clearly not in the public interest. However, individual MPs still have the power to say no to their leaders. When it is not in the interest of the public, MPs, whether they are Conservatives, Liberals or Bloc members, can say no, that they will not vote for Bill C-7 because it is not in the public interest. They do not need to give in to this functional majority, where we simply allow in any piece of legislation, no matter how badly flawed and no matter how it makes the edifice of important elements, like air safety, crumble, and vote for it.

I would ask, on behalf of the NDP, that members in all four corners of the House vote down this legislation because it is not in the public interest. They should vote it down because it calls for more secrecy and because it is patently unfair. A CEO who breaks the law gets a get out of jail free card. They should vote it down because it essentially gives over the whole question of air safety to the company itself and takes the federal government out of ensuring passenger safety on Canada's airlines. That is wrong and that is why the NDP is voting no.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for his presentation.

He spoke about the fact that, at the outset, the bill had many problems. The Bloc and the NDP voted against Bill C-6 at second reading, given all the problems with the legislation.

Because of the many problems with the bill, we were able to correct barely half. This bill still has tremendous problems.

First there is the problem of self management. My colleague knows that allowing airline companies to manage their own safety systems poses a problem. Next, chief executives are not penalized if they violate Canadian laws. In addition, there is the matter of access to information and the fact that we now have seven additional sections. The information to which Quebec consumers have access should be set out in the Access to Information Act.

Given these three major problems that were not corrected in committee, because the Liberals decided to support the Conservatives, I find it difficult to understand how the Bloc could support such a bill. It is true that the Bloc and NDP efforts did make it possible to correct some of the problems with this bill. However, the bill is far from being in the public interest. I do not understand the position of the Bloc Québécois.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to allow the hon. Minister of Finance the opportunity to speak. As you know, the Bloc Québécois would have liked to see this budget statement given before this House, but of course, the NDP refused. I therefore had the pleasure of giving the Minister of Finance a few minutes to put on his show.

Once again, I would like to return to the safety management system. It is very important that our citizens clearly understand the changes preferred by the Bloc Québécois regarding this bill, particularly in the interest of their safety. Civil aviation must reassure its clientele, and this was the Bloc Québécois' guiding principle when we voted against Bill C-6 at second reading and as we worked in committee, trying to advance the bill and convince the government that it was off track.

Still we succeeded thanks to the testimony of various stakeholders who did a good job of making the government understand the situation. It finally agreed that civil aviation companies could not be allowed to have a security management system that would replace Transport Canada inspections. The Bloc Québécois wanted to ensure that the entire inspection service was kept, including the inspectors, check pilots, and all the people who can show up occasionally at companies without warning to ensure that they are complying with high security standards. This inspection service had been the great strength of the civil aviation security system in Canada and Quebec.

That was how we did it. Similarly, we were able to make our various partners understand that a vote against this bill on second reading could become a vote in favour of it so long as some important changes were made. I am quite happy with the results. In a minority government, it is the opposition parties that have a majority in committee and we managed together to re-work this bill so that the security management system would be supported and supervised by a good inspection system similar to what we used to have and to what the witnesses told us.

As I said before, the International Civil Aviation Organization representative came to tell us that when a country decides to go to a security management system, it should keep an inspection service to supervise it. That is what this bill does: the minister and Transport Canada are required to inspect the large airlines that have their own security management systems. The management system is just added to the entire security service. It does not replace Transport Canada’s inspection service but is added to the security already provided. This will enable employees to report security problems within the company to their employer without having to fear disciplinary action, thanks to an entire system established under this bill.

We obviously needed to ensure that employees who reveal information about security lapses are protected. We did not want to go so far as an informer system but chose rather a system that would help improve the company and improve its security. This whole system is supervised, and we were obliged, of course, to ensure that the Canada Labour Code took precedence over anything in the legislation. This took time, but the government and my colleagues in the opposition understood very well why we were doing it.

We needed to make sure that if employees had employability problems as a result of making statements within the framework of this system, their employment would be protected. As far as the Canada Labour Code is concerned, it was important to us that it take priority over this bill because this affected the interests of employees in the entire civil aviation system.

Obviously this safety management system starts with those who work on maintenance on the ground or those who take care of any type of maintenance of the plane, including pilots and cabin crew. All these people who work in the civil aviation industry and in a company are now part of this safety management system, which currently applies to the eight major airlines and will also apply to smaller companies.

As far as the smaller companies are concerned, Transport Canada came up with what is called a designated agency, whereby the smaller companies that take adventure tourists by jet or by helicopter to tourist destinations in northern Quebec or other parts of Canada, can be supervised by a designated agency.

Until the larger companies manage to establish a truly effective safety management system, properly inspected by Transport Canada, then it will be rather difficult hand off to designated agencies the companies that are beacons to every part of the industry, the smallest public air carriers, where there are fewer travellers than on the major airlines.

As long as there was no balance in the larger companies, we felt it was too soon to entrust this to other agencies, to create designated agencies to take care of the smaller companies that would have to follow the same safety standards as the larger companies. That is what we wanted to be sure of.

However, before delegating to intermediaries the monitoring of all these activities at smaller public airlines, we wanted to ensure that the system was well in place at major companies. This is why there will be a waiting period before the designated organization is established. Indeed, this organization may become operative three years after the bill receives royal assent. Therefore, designated organizations are maintained. Indeed, such organizations can be established under this legislation.

During those three years, Transport Canada will be able to properly select these organizations, so that we, and of course the public, can be quite familiar with the organizations that will monitor smaller companies. We must be in a position to ensure that they are properly inspected and monitored. It is possible that companies that build aircraft or other things be appointed as designated organizations. This is rather difficult, because these companies have clients.

We want to ensure that these people, because they deal with clients, tighten up safety standards somewhat. We want to ensure that an effective inspection and management system is in place, so that the people, the organizations or the companies that become designated organizations are well aware that they will be monitored by Transport Canada. This is why inspectors will be conducting on-site verifications and inspections at any time, at both larger and smaller carriers, so that everyone who may some day travel on a public airline will be truly protected, and so that their safety will never be compromised.

This is the objective that has always been behind the Bloc's statements in the House. This is why, as I said, we voted against Bill C-6, which is now Bill C-7, at second reading. That bill was incomplete, and it did not guarantee that the inspection system in Canada would be preserved. Instead, it suggested that the safety management system would replace Transport Canada's whole inspection system, which has been in place for the past 30 years.

This bill incorporates the same inspection service. We have been assured that the same number of inspectors will be maintained and perhaps even increased, if necessary. Moreover, the security management system within an operation will allow all employees, regardless of category, whether they work on the ground, in maintenance, in passenger service, as pilots or in other occupations, to file a complaint or disclose a breach of security, which would then enable Transport Canada to investigate any safety management system.

There would be Transport Canada specialists to verify the safety management system and there would also be inspectors to go into a company at any time to examine the quality and condition of aircraft, to determine whether pilots have the required skills, and so forth. All of that, of course, is intended to protect the safety and security of Quebeckers as well as that of Canadians.

On that point, we will never back down.

Apart from the safety management system, we agree with the objectives of this bill as presented: to maintain current monitoring and inspection measures; to qualify designated organizations by establishing a period of three years before they are authorized to exercise their responsibilities. During that period, Transport Canada will take the time to train, coach and supervise those organizations, and later, inspect them. Finally, this legislation will be harmonized with the Canada Labour Code.

If we are moving toward a system where employees have the privilege and the power to point out breaches of security within their operation, it is essential that those employees are protected. To do that, this bill must be harmonized with the Canada Labour Code. We want whistle blowers to be protected. In that way, people who file complaints or disclose breaches of security will be protected and there will be access to an audit and inspection report, through access to information procedures.

On the subject of access to information, the Conservative government still has the bad habit of making such reports as inaccessible as possible. That is not acceptable as part of a bill that provides for 95% of what we are asking for. Obviously, some documents will be made available to the public, but they will protect the great majority of documents from access to information.

Transport Canada and the federal government tell us that it is also necessary to protect the individuals who make those disclosures. Their names and other information must be hidden. We were ready to do that and even to give direction to the information commissioner. We are aware that this could cause problems for national security. Some information must not be disclosed.

However, for the rest, if we know that some employees have made disclosures after an accident, within a company where a safety management system has been established, we would want the entire file to be available to the public. We now understand that will not happen. Only a summary of the disclosure will be available to the public.

We have made some gains but some day there will have to be a real battle over this bill. Time will tell what kind of documents are provided through access to information.

We can understand that it is necessary to protect the names of the people who disclose information. We also understand that those must be voluntary disclosures. Accordingly, companies must encourage their employees to make voluntary disclosures. We can also understand that if the documents are made public, some companies would want to prevent employees from doing so.

We think that once the whole system is up and running, we will have to revisit the access to information issue. If ever an incident or a disaster were to occur, the people of Canada and the whole world would want to know about the company's safety record. That way, we would know whether such accidents happen often and whether companies are doing everything they can to prevent them.

All we are saying is that Transport Canada's report will be made public. The report will summarize briefly—or at length—audits of the company.

That means that we will never see the statements signed by employees. We will just have to accept Transport Canada's periodic audit reports. When Transport Canada audits a company, it has to keep an audit report that details certain criteria, requests and complaints submitted by the companies, but that does not name names. It will be pretty vague. In time, we will see how well this works.

Refusing to make these documents public is the Conservatives' modus operandi, as we have seen over the past few months.

We, the Bloc Québécois, are rather satisfied with the rest of Bill C-7. It differs significantly from what the Liberals introduced in Bill C-62 when they formed a minority government. It even differs significantly from what the Conservatives first introduced.

They copied and pasted what the Liberals did without consulting industry and without ensuring that appropriate safeguards would remain in place. Fortunately, the Bloc Québécois was there to help our colleagues understand that once again, safety was about to be eroded. We protected the interests of Quebeckers and those of Canadians, and we are proud of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

As several of my colleagues have said already, this is a bill that has evolved over the course of many discussions, including those held in committee. We must remember that before the Conservative government decided to prorogue the House, the Bloc Québécois had voted against this bill—which was then Bill C-6—at second reading. Today, we are supporting Bill C-7 because it has changed considerably. I will try to explain this.

Earlier, I was talking about the history of this bill to my Liberal colleague. In the previous Parliament, when the Liberal Party formed a minority government, it introduced Bill C-62, in November 2005. Like the bill now before the House, that was a bill to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. When the Conservatives, in turn, formed a minority government, they brought back that bill in almost identical form, but for a few words. Those are the facts.

When the Conservatives reinstated Bill C-6, they did not bother to ensure that it met the needs of the industry and the people responsible for safety. I am referring to Transport Canada inspectors, and any other agency with the very specific task of looking after safety. We must not forget that Transport Canada had already allowed the airlines to implement their own safety management system without having any legislation for overseeing that system. Before reintroducing Bill C-6, the Conservatives did not bother to make sure that the safety management system had been accredited, although it was included in Bill C-6.

For those who are listening to us, I will try to summarize what the safety management system is. What it does is allow companies to have an internal way of operating that makes it possible for employees to report safety violations within the company. Without this framework, employees might be deterred from working to develop the security management system because they were afraid of losing their job or being reprimanded by their superiors.

This was the Bloc’s big concern. We did not want the safety management system being proposed again in Bill C-6 to replace the entire inspection system in place at Transport Canada. That system is in fact the source of the excellent safety reputation of the entire civil aviation system in Canada, and obviously in Quebec, for the Quebeckers for whose interests we stand up every day in this House. In our opinion, it was very important that the safety management system not replace the entire Transport Canada inspection system. That is why we voted against Bill C-6 at second reading.

We asked that witnesses, including representatives of the International Civil Aviation Organization, be invited to explain to the committee the entire process of implementing the safety management system. Canada was indeed a leader in implementing the safety management system in civil aviation. However, the ICAO representative gave us to understand that implementing a safety management system inside the airline....

Canada Transportation Act

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

moved for leave to introduce C-8, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act (railway transportation).

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the special order made previously, I would like to inform you that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-58 was in the previous session at the time of prorogation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Aeronautics Act

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the special order made previously, I would like to inform you that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-6 was in the previous session at the time of prorogation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Pilotage Act

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

Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a huge sore point with the Conservatives in the room and I can understand. They are very sensitive to Bill C-6 and the very reckless and irresponsible tack that they took on that bill. However, Canadians will be happy to learn that the NDP stopped them in their tracks today. The bill is not law and hopefully over the next few months Canadians will make their voices heard.

It is important, relevant and pertinent because if we have concerns about the overall policy orientation of the government, coming back to Bill C-64, it is extremely relevant when we see the kinds of problems and mistakes in policy that the Conservatives have already made. Thankfully, one Conservative has just acknowledged that they have made a lot of mistakes, which is good. The first step of the rehabilitation program for the Conservatives is when they admit the mistakes they are making. Hopefully later on they can move to reconciling and actually fixing some of the errors that they have made in this first year and a half in government.

Because the orientation of the government raises serious concerns, when we look at Bill C-64 it brings more red flags. We have seen what the Conservatives tried to do with flight attendants after a lobbyist talked to them. We have seen what they tried to do with Bill C-6 after a lobbyist talked to them. Now we have the same kinds of issues raised with the act to amend the Pilotage Act.

What do we have? We have well-trained pilots who navigate coastal waters, particularly around the St. Lawrence Seaway. However, in my case, coming from British Columbia, what we are talking about, in many parts of the Pacific coast, are dangerous waters that can be very treacherous and that need to be known well and the pilots who navigate off the British Columbia coast are people who have a vast degree of experience and ability. They have been well-trained and they understand the importance of understanding the coastal waters. That training is an important asset to ensure that there are no accidents.

As we have seen when we look at Bill C-6, if the government's intention is to cause more accidents, one has to wonder why. What is the counterbalance? The Conservatives say in their news release, the same one that talked about consultations, and we know how credible that was, that flexibility will be important for authorities.

Flexibility, meaning what? Does it mean that they can hire people who do not have that high level of qualification? We fear that is the intent and that it is all influenced by dollars. The government is running billions and billions of dollars of surplus and it has not chosen to deal with any of the crises that many Canadians are experiencing, like the homelessness crisis. Certainly the Liberals did not put in place a housing program but the Conservatives have not chosen to either. What they want to do is simply put together surpluses without addressing some real issues.

We save a few dollars on pilots but we would have people who may be less qualified on the dangerous waters of the Pacific coast. That would make no sense whatsoever and that concerns us. When we look at the news release that accompanied this bill which the Conservatives tried to bring through in a matter of hours, it seems that the principal intention of the bill is to provide flexibility.

If the flexibility means hiring people who might not have the same degree of qualifications, of course we are concerned. If what it means is that we are trying to save a bit of money but putting our ships in danger, we are also talking about the marine environment and individuals, we need to think twice.

That is essentially the problem with Bill C-64. We look at the process where the Conservatives simply dropped the bill in the House a few hours ago and now want to bring it to second reading right away. The process raises concerns about where the government is going. We have its track record on trying to diminish the flight attendant ratio and in trying to push through Bill C-6, which, thank goodness, the NDP stopped because it clearly was not in the Canadian public interest. Now we see with this orientation a similar problem.

We then have the bill itself which seems to be a way of perhaps saving some money but it does not really address the issue of safety, which must be utmost in the government's mind.

For those reasons, we in this corner of the House have real difficulty with this bill. We have difficulty with the government's orientation and transportation policy generally, and we have difficulty because we are concerned that the government has not consulted the marine employees, the unions that are involved in marine transportation and are the experts in how transportation policy should be adopted. The government did not choose to consult with them. That is unfortunate and that is why we will be opposing this bill.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have listened with great interest to my friend opposite, as the last hours of this session of Parliament wind down. He was here earlier today and he spoke many times to Bill C-6, the Aeronautics Act, which involved airplanes, pilots of airplanes and those types of issues. Now we are debating Bill C-64, the Pilotage Act. We are not talking about pilotage of airplanes any more. We are talking about the pilotage of ships.

I wonder if the member could try to stick a bit closer to the topic, the Pilotage Act, and leave Bill C-6 alone for a bit. We debated that bill at length earlier today. Could the member be a bit more relevant in his comments?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-64. I expect to speak at length on this bill because there is a great deal to be said. However, I realize that, under the Standing Orders, I will only have 20 minutes.

First, I would like to explain the process that has led us, this Wednesday evening before the summer recess, to a discussion of this bill. Then, I will touch on our concerns, in this part of the House, with regard to this government's policies in the area of transportation. What it is doing is not in the interests of Canadians. I will come back to that. Finally, I will speak about the pilotage system and the impact of what the government is introducing today.

I will take my time in talking about these three aspects. I know that we will come back to this bill at second reading and that we will have an opportunity in the fall to discuss it in more detail.

I would like to start by speaking about the process around Bill C-64, which raises red flags right off the bat, particularly when we saw what happened with Bill C-6 which the NDP was basically able to stop the House from adopting today, thankfully. That bill would have pushed Canadian airlines right over the cliff in terms of safety and security for Canadians and their loved ones who are travelling on Canadian flights.

Thankfully, we in the NDP dug in our heels. We said it was inappropriate legislation and it should not pass. Now Canadians from coast to coast to coast will have the chance this summer to write to their members of Parliament and say it is unacceptable that the Conservative government diminishes flight safety.

It is unacceptable that the government created a get out of jail free card for company CEOs no matter what they do, as long as they record it in their internal systems. Transport Canada is handing over safety preoccupations to the companies themselves. Essentially that information cannot be used against the company CEOs to prosecute them, so they get a get out of jail free card.

The secrecy that we have talked about in terms of Bill C-6 is absolutely appalling, and I will come back to that in a moment. There is also the fact that there is no whistleblower protection.

Thankfully, tonight the NDP stopped the government and the Liberal Party in their tracks from taking the airline industry over a cliff.

Now we see the same sort of process developing for Bill C-64. This bill was brought forward for first reading yesterday. It was just thrown into the House rapidly and the government is insisting that it go to second reading today, very quickly.

What is it about the government orientation and initiative that it cannot intervene when it comes to the housing crisis, to support more access to post-secondary education, to deal with the health care crisis or to deal with the myriad difficulties that Canadians are living through? There have been a quarter of a million manufacturing jobs lost in the last few years. We have seen the softwood crisis ignite because of the softwood sellout. In each case the Conservative Party will not react.

The Conservatives act like deer caught in the headlights. They cannot do a thing to fix some of these crises that Canadians are experiencing but they find lobbyists who say we should amend the Pilotage Act and within 24 hours that legislation is pushed into the House, and the government wants to take it to second reading and pass it. The Conservatives cannot deal with any real problems. They avoid dealing with any of the real crises and problems that ordinary working families are experiencing but when a lobbyist pushes something, that bill comes right into the House. That is absolutely unacceptable.

The parliamentary secretary was talking a few minutes ago about consultations. He said he consulted stakeholders and despite the fact that colleagues from three corners of the House all asked him to reveal the names of anybody beyond company CEOs that he actually consulted, he did not come up with any names. We pressed him to reveal who these stakeholders were, these anonymous stakeholders who somehow believe this is great legislation. He was not able to reveal any of those names, which puts in doubt the entire background information that was provided in the news release that the minister pushed forward when he announced that he wanted to ram this bill through Parliament.

When the Conservatives talked about stakeholder consultation they mentioned a couple of towns. They met with somebody at some point I guess, yet they cannot reveal any of the actual employee groups, the people who do the work in marine transportation in Canada. It certainly raises red flags about what exactly the government is doing.

The Conservatives race to bring this bill to the House rather than address any of the real issues that Canadians are facing. They say that they have done some sort of consultation but they cannot reveal any names.

Then, to top it all off, we have seen how the Conservative government has derided and disrespected the marine employees themselves, the folks who do the work on shipping from coast to coast. The folks who actually do the work, the marine transport workers, the unions, the employee groups that are actually out there doing the work do not appear to have been consulted at all.

We have seen the government move in a direction where there is no more national marine advisory council. The national marine advisory council has been gutted. It used to exist to actually provide very important input from ordinary working men and women who work in the marine industry. They were cut right out and now this little elite group of CEOs was put together.

The transport committee sat on this issue and directed the government to bring all stakeholders together, to bring employee groups in, unions representing ordinary men and women who work in the marine industry, so that there would be real consultations.

So far the government has absolutely refused to have anything other than an elite process with CEOs. That is unacceptable despite the fact the transport committee provided clear direction.

When the parliamentary secretary said the government has had these consultations or it has actually listened to people in the marine industry, I am exceedingly skeptical about what consultations actually took place.

I will come back to this in a moment because then we can talk about what the actual results are of Bill C-64, the bill that the government is trying to ram through in a couple of days apparently.

I raised the issue about the overall orientation of the government on transportation policy and I would like to give two examples of why I am concerned with Bill C-64.

There are two reasons why I have some real concerns about where the government is heading and where the transport minister is heading. First, we had an attempt by the government last year to actually reduce the number of flight attendants on Canadian flights.

Why is that important? Flight attendants play that key safety and security role, particularly when there is evacuation required of an aircraft. We had the Air France disaster a couple of years ago where flight attendants played an extremely key role in ensuring that there was no major loss of life in that accident. The flight attendants were there to evacuate passengers.

If we think about it, the plane crashes and it is on fire and 100 people have to get out. The flight attendants are needed to help those individuals, particularly seniors and people with disabilities, to ensure that everyone gets out alive. There are only seconds to do that.

Ensuring that there are an adequate number of flight attendants on Canadian flights is of utmost importance. Yet, the government moved last year in the month of June to actually diminish the number of flight attendants on Canadian flights. What is wrong with that picture? It would have meant more danger for Canadians travelling on Canadian flights.

The NDP rolled up its sleeves as it is want to do and pushed the government back. The Conservative members in the House know very well that we forced the minister to retreat from that really irresponsible position and he has subsequently said that he will not lower the flight attendant ratio. He will not provide an excuse for airline companies to put a smaller number of flight attendants on Canadian flights. That means that Canadians are more secure. That is one example.

Let me refer to the other example, which is Bill C-6, which the NDP stopped in its tracks today. As a matter of fact all members of Parliament from the NDP were speaking on that bill and we managed to stop the government's agenda, which was to try to push through Bill C-6.

What does Bill C-6 do? It simply contracts out safety from Transport Canada to other companies. Some companies will be responsible, there is no doubt. Some companies will be very responsible. We have seen with the railways that some companies handle the additional responsibility of safety and hold the issue of safety uppermost in their minds, but other companies do not.

We saw with the railway industry when that was done how the CEO of CN decided that cutting corners was quite okay. Corners were cut to increase profits.

What we have seen in British Columbia and in other communities across the country is a lot more environmental devastation and loss of life because the CEO of CN was not as concerned about safety as he was concerned about profits. We essentially saw a gutting of the safety culture within CN. That is not me speaking.

The actual audit done on CN showed there was a dysfunctional relationship between upper management and those who did the work in regard to safety. Many of the workers at CN felt they were getting excessive pressure to try to simply cut corners on safety.

The government is now doing the exact same thing with the airline industry. It is saying that it will contract that out and companies will have to take care of themselves. What is wrong with that? Witnesses at transport committee said very clearly that would lead to a race to the bottom. Even presidents of airline companies, like Kirsten Brazier, who came forward from Dax Air, said that if we put this system into place, it would be a race to the bottom and companies would try to cut corners in order to stay alive.

That is what the Conservative government is doing. It is giving away the transportation responsibility for safety to the airline companies. Even more, the government is saying that a company CEO who makes a huge error will be protected. This is a get out of jail free card. The CEO will not be prosecuted.

There is also an excessive, absolutely paranoiac level of secrecy and confidentiality. The safety information that used to be part of the public domain, safety information that Canadians should have access to know which airline to choose, will now be treated like confidential tax information and locked away for decades.

Imagine how Canadians would feel if they put their loved ones on a Canadian flight, that airplane crashed and they found out 20 years after the fact that Transport Canada was well aware of the safety violations, but chose to do nothing about it. Therefore—

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

Mr. Speaker, I have an opportunity to try and educate my colleague. The Bloc Québécois was the first party to vote against Bill C-6. Having heard from both union and management witnesses in committee, the Bloc Québécois is firmly convinced of the value of a safety management system based on voluntary reporting. In fact, Bill C-6 is designed to create an environment where all airline employees, including administrative staff, who are often part of management, can voluntarily report safety problems without danger of prosecution or reprisals. We are firmly convinced that this is the right course of action and that it protects the number of inspectors.

That is why the Bloc Québécois made sure the government understood that Transport Canada was headed toward a system where traditional inspection was being replaced, and that is why the Bloc supported the arguments made by the ICAO representatives who came to meet with us. My colleague was there. They told us that Canada was a world leader in safety, certainly because it had one of the world's most effective inspection programs. We must make sure this inspection system is maintained.

The problem I have—my colleague probably has the same problem—is with the number of inspectors. I was very disappointed that what the employee network was saying did not correspond to reality. Not as many inspectors left as my colleague claims. It is not true. I wish it were true; it is not that I would not have liked that. Nonetheless, it is not true that so many pilot inspector positions were lost. There are roughly 30 fewer positions than there were 10 or 15 years ago, which is not as bad as we first thought. When Justice Moshansky presented this to us, he said the number dropped from 1,400 to 800, and I thought that was incredible. I am disappointed that some people exaggerated.

I do not believe what my colleague is suggesting about there being fewer pilot inspectors. There are slightly fewer, but I think in light of what we made the government realize, it wants the same level of safety that we do. I therefore have the feeling that the pilot inspector positions—

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

Mr. Speaker, I know it is difficult given that there are so many people who want to ask questions. I would say to my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel that the total number of air safety inspectors is decreasing. The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities noted that the number of inspector positions went from 800 to fewer than 700. So we see, again, that the Conservative government is not ready to fill vacant positions. Bill C-6 has shown us that there is a gradual and consistent decrease in the number of inspectors. Even if the NDP and the Bloc Québécois made amendments, Bill C-6 is still seriously flawed.

Lobbyists did in fact apply pressure, but, apart from the pilots who talked about safety management systems, very few people addressed the practical outcome of this debate. My colleague is quite right about Bill C-64, because it was indeed pressure that ultimately led to the change and to the bill. I do not understand why he fails to see the similarities between Bill C-64 and Bill C-6. Although Bill C-6 was improved by the amendments of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, it is still far from guaranteeing airline safety as much as we all would like. Similarly, Bill C-64 does not do enough to ensure safety in the marine transportation sector.

Does my hon. colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel not see the similarities between the two bills?

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like my colleague for Burnaby—New Westminster, who does an excellent job for British Columbia and who is a strong champion of that province, to distinguish between Bill C-6 and Bill C-64, which is before us.

He knows very well that Bill C-6 was supported not only by the owners' lobby but also by the pilots and the flight attendants. They represent two completely different worlds. Bill C-6 implements the safety management system for airports and all things pertaining to airplanes. Airlines need this dual safety net. My colleague has not yet come to an understanding of that fact. However, he will probably be able to understand that we have been able to protect the inspections. It is important to have a safety management system not only to ensure that companies implement an internal plan to improve safety based on voluntary reports, but also to ensure that an inspection system is in place. I am thoroughly convinced that we have protected this aspect.

The Bloc Québécois amendments, most of which he supported, were designed to put in place a proper inspection system, which the rail system does not have. Since we are looking at this issue this afternoon, the rail system has a safety management system, but there is no legislation providing for an inspection system. Therein lies the problem. There are only 25 railway inspectors for the whole country, whereas there are about 800 inspectors in the airline industry in Canada. We need to protect that, and I believe that is what we have done in Bill C-6.

However, he is quite right about Bill C-64. Attempts are being made to resolve this issue, but the ship owners' lobby is very strong. I was lobbied between 2000 and 2006. The ship owners' lobby is very strong on the issue of pilotage. This lobby believes that it can replace people with machines, but that is not how things work. It would be a good idea for us to sit down with the pilots so that they can explain that geomorphology is not something a machine can handle when there is wind or flooding in an area or when groundwater shifts sandbanks.

These people know how things work and where the water runs down off the mountains and where it flows into the St. Lawrence River, in the estuary or in the seaway. These people know their stuff, just as they must in British Columbia. They know how things work. Pilotage takes a human being, and a machine is no substitute. This is true elsewhere in the world, and I see no reason why things should be different here.

I agree with my friend about Bill C-64. The Bloc Québécois and the NDP will block the ship owners' lobby again. We will make sure the quality of our waters can never be threatened. When all is said and done, we are protecting neither the pilots nor the ship owners, but the people who live near our beautiful bodies of water and often get their drinking water from them. We need to avoid disasters and accidents wherever possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed the presentation given by my hon. colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel on the subject of Bill C-64, An Act to amend the Pilotage Act.

He very clearly stated that lobbyists and business leaders prefer to disregard the importance of safety as ships navigate the waters of Quebec and British Columbia, where there are very competent, trained people who are very familiar with the waters. This is an important factor. This is an example of how this government gives in to pressure without considering the repercussions.

Here on this side of the House, we said the same thing about Bill C-6. In an effort to save money, air industry lobbyists applied a great deal of pressure to diminish airline safety. Fortunately, the NDP managed to prevent the passage of Bill C-6 here today. I hope the government will rethink its entire approach to this issue.

I have two question for my hon. colleague. First of all, in both cases, that is, Bill C-6 and Bill C-64, did he notice the government's tendency to give in to pressure from lobbyists?

Second, does he agree with us that Bill C-6 and Bill C-64 should be withdrawn?

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

Mr. Speaker, this gives me a great opportunity to answer the member's question specifically and to talk a bit about moving forward as the member mentioned.

We do get the job done on this side of the House. The government is moving forward with a tough agenda. We are not going to move forward like the NDP did on Bill C-6, which was actually moving backwards. We want to get the job done.

We did listen to stakeholders and we will continue to do so, from coast to coast to coast. I want to let the member know that I personally met with the union members and the officials he is speaking of from the marine industry representing the employees. I met with them and listened to them some four or five months before this issue even hit the radar screen on the NDP. So, we are listening and we are getting the job done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the parliamentary secretary.

Given the fact that the government is rushing forward with this bill that was only actually brought forward for first reading 48 hours ago, and because of some of the real problems we have seen in the transportation policy brought forward, thank goodness we just stopped Bill C-6 in the nick of time. At least Conservative members will have a few months to go home and think about the actions that they may take on Bill C-6.

Coming back to Bill C-64, the parliamentary secretary talked about consultations. This is the same Conservative government that has refused to bring marine employees in through their unions into a national marine advisory council, despite the fact that we have had very clear guidance from the transport committee saying that this needs to be put in place.

Marine employees, those workers who work in marine industries, need to be at the table when there is discussion around national marine transportation policy. It is logical. It makes sense that we would actually consult the people who know the most about marine policy. It is certainly not the CEOs. It is the people who actually do the job. Those are the folks who need to be consulted.

I enjoyed his speech, as I always do, but when he talked about stakeholders, could he tell us, were employees consulted, were unions consulted, or were the stakeholders simply company CEOs?

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Aeronautics Act

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

The Canadian Union of Public Employees is against the bill.

One of these days, we will all be sitting at home and there will be an accident. We will then read in the papers that the airline did not fulfill its responsibilities in terms of safety. However, since it filled out the aircraft journey log, it will be protected. The government will not be able to hold the company responsible. We will not be able to hold it responsible, and families will have problems and will be left to deal with the tragedy.

This bill is important and should have been adopted a long time ago. This bill also aims to raise the awareness of the Conservative government, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois. How can they accept the fact that the government is abdicating responsibility for corporations that should be under its supervision?

Take Air Canada for example. This example may seem rather banal, but in a country like ours, which is supposedly bilingual—French and English—on-board instructions were not even provided in French on Air Canada planes. Flight attendants did not give instructions in French. We had to fight for our official language rights. At long last, a manual now exists, and the flight crew is responsible for providing passengers with emergency landing instructions in both official languages.

This is an important bill, and it is unfortunate that it has come along at the last minute and without warning, and that it does not appear very important. Yet, workplace health and public safety are of prime importance. Once an accident happens, it is too late. The public should know what the government hopes to achieve with Bill C-6. It hopes to shift its governmental responsibilities for public safety and health onto the airlines. This is completely unacceptable and even worse than the Coast Guard situation.

If we put fewer Coast Guard members out there, people could be in danger. There are not enough people to help us in these situations. I remember the same thing happened in New Brunswick in the mining industry over 15 years ago. At the time, the government was responsible for the health and safety of below-ground workers. It was called the Mining Act. The inspector was responsible for various things. Then the government turned the tables and made the company responsible. They could have at least left the inspectors in place or added more inspectors so that work sites could be inspected. That is when they started reducing the number of inspectors.

That is really where it all began: the government started reducing the number of inspectors working in the airline industry, and that is sad. I do not want to see the day when, at home or elsewhere, we hear about an accident in which people lost their lives, or about a plane that crashed in a city or in the country, killing innocent bystanders.

I do not want to see that day because it will be Parliament's fault for passing the Conservative bill as it is currently worded because the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of it. They have not done their duty. The union of public employees was clear about not being in favour of this bill. We are therefore not the only ones.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the NDP member for Burnaby—New Westminster for all the work he did on Bill C-6, which is an important bill.

Bill C-6 has been around before. In the case of railways, the bill was amended to make companies responsible for ensuring railway safety and to remove this responsibility from the government's mandate.

Not long ago, the news reports and newspapers were saying that the railway linking Moncton to Campbellton was so damaged that a VIA Rail train was an hour late by the time it got to Bathurst. Imagine a whole hour late. Also, what would happen if a freight train carrying dangerous goods derailed, or if the goods spilled into the rivers? The government is no longer there to keep an eye on things. They leave it to the companies and big corporations.

As for the air industry, we should remember the difficulties Air Canada experienced. It was on the verge of bankruptcy. It practically declared bankruptcy. Without blaming Air Canada, we have the right to wonder whether corners will be cut. What does the government have to say about that? It could not care less. This is also what happened with the Coast Guard, which suffered cutbacks. There are no more fish in the sea, so there is no need for anyone to monitor the sea or the ocean. I do not think anyone can get hurt or lose their life because of that, but the air industry is another story.

The government just wants to turn around and say that in this case it is not responsible, the airline company is. It is up to the company to say when something is wrong. If it does not say anything, it is responsible. All it has to do is say something, write it in its logbook, and that is that.

I would like to go back to the railway between Moncton and Bathurst. I am thinking of all of the derailments that have happened across the country: in the west, in Ontario and in Quebec. The government is not fulfilling its responsibility. It has passed everything on to the companies. As everyone knows, these big companies were good friends with the Conservative and the Liberal governments, so the government wants to lighten their load and, at the same time, abdicate its responsibility so that it does not have to spend a lot of money.

Furthermore, Bill C-6 does not protect whistleblowers. For example, when I was working in the mines back in 1978, we made sure that a worker could refuse a job if he thought that it would endanger his health or safety. Workers also had the right to tell their co-workers that the work posed a health or safety threat. Bill C-6 offers no protection for whistleblowers. There is nothing to protect whistleblowers who might want to say that they think the plane that passengers are about to board is not safe, that something could happen to put people in danger. There is nothing to protect those people.

How can the Conservative government, along with the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois, support a bill like Bill C-6? All three parties support this bill. With respect to the—

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

We are at report stage in this debate, which is a very crucial phase of the debate where we are considering the amendments that were made at the transport committee to this important bill.

I want to begin by thanking my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, for his work on this important legislation. He has toiled long and hard to ensure that the House pays due attention to the safety concerns of Canadians when we are travelling by air. He has worked to see improvements made to the proposed legislation.

We still believe it is a very flawed bill but the work of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster has certainly ensured that it is a better bill than it was and the amendments that he has brought forward are very important toward that.

It remains a deeply problematic bill, however, because all of the amendments that were necessary did not get passed.

We debated that process in the House yesterday and we are debating it again today. It is, as I said, a very crucial piece of legislation. I believe all Canadians want to know that they are safe when they are travelling by air. They want to know that the airline industry is safe for the people who work in it. They want to be sure that someone is paying attention to the safety of our air transportation system.

I am not convinced that Bill C-6 would act in the interest of Canadians when it comes to ensuring our safety as we travel by air or as we transport goods by air.

The proposed legislation would enshrine safety management systems to allow the industry to decide the level of risk that it is willing to accept in its operations, rather than abide by a level of safety established by a minister acting in the public interest. It would allow government to transfer increasing responsibility to the industry itself to set and enforce its own safety standards. It is designed in part to help Transport Canada deal with declining resources and high projected levels of inspector retirements.

That is of great concern to me and to members of the New Democratic Party. The basic premise of the bill to allow the transfer of responsibility from government to the corporate sector for something as important as ensuring safety just is not an acceptable way to go.

As someone from British Columbia, I have watched the increasing number of railway accidents in recent years that have caused deaths and environmental problems in British Columbia and across the country due to safety concerns. We have also heard concerns from some of the workers whose colleagues have been killed in these accidents and from workers who have made that a key component of their bargaining in recent collective agreement negotiations with the major rail companies in Canada. They have tried to highlight their concerns for ongoing safety because we know that the railway industry has a similar system to what is being proposed in Bill C-6 for the airline industry. We have seen the failures of that by the large number of railway accidents in recent years.

As someone from British Columbia, I am also concerned about the major derailments on the former BC Rail line which have caused many deaths. There have been many fairly dramatic accidents. One accident in particular was the Cheakamus Canyon derailment which caused the death of that river and will require probably decades of remediation work to bring the river back to even some semblance of what it once was. The derailment caused the dumping of hazardous materials into the river which killed a huge number of fish and other creatures that live in that river system.

It is a very important concern to me, to the people in my riding and to the people of British Columbia when we see a safety record in the railway industry that causes those kinds of concerns and has led to those kinds of accidents and has not improved the safety record of railways. It has done nothing to improve it, to make it better, to prevent accidents, to prevent the deaths of workers and to prevent environmental problems that result from those accidents.

I think we want to be absolutely certain that any legislation that goes forward from this place does not contribute to a similar circumstance in yet another transportation industry. Our concern is that Bill C-6, which deals with the aeronautics industry, would lead to similar circumstances in the management of safety concerns and the attention to safety details.

It is always a concern to us when we turn safety monitoring, safety enforcement and enforcement measures over to the corporate sector to follow because we know that in the corporate sector the bottom line is the financial ledger. It often does not pay the attention needed to safety because of its concerns about profits. I suppose that is a reasonable circumstance if one were in the corporate sector, but I do not think it is a reasonable assumption or a reasonable premise for Canadians who use the airline industry.

I remember where this was first driven home for me years ago. It was at the Miners Museum in Cape Breton. I do not know if the museum is still there because it has been some decades since I was there. However, off the main lobby of that terrific museum on Cape Breton Island was what looked like a side chapel and there was a glass case that had a number of objects in it. One of the two key components in that display was the company ledger showing the profits that the company was making. The other component was a list of the workers who had died in that particular mine because the museum was built on the site of a former coal mine on Cape Breton Island. There was no explanation as to why the company ledger was sitting there beside the list of workers who had died but it made a very powerful statement and a very deliberate statement about how those two things were not combined naturally to pay attention to the safety of the people who worked there and to ensure their safety and well-being as they worked there.

For me, that was a very dramatic example of the kinds of concerns that arise when we allow the corporate sector a free rein over issues like worker safety and the safety of the travelling public, which is why I am very skeptical about the direction of Bill C-6 and what it hopes to accomplish as a piece of legislation in this House.

Safety should never be subject to the rise and fall of a company's profit margin. I think that is particularly true in the airline industry where we know that often airline companies have had a difficult go of it in Canada, where we have seen airlines come and go in recent years because of the difficulties of making a reasonable profit, of making a go of it as a business in that industry. That kind of circumstance, I think, is ripe for the kinds of concerns to arise over cutting corners when it comes to dealing with questions of safety.

I know there are many concerns that we have in this corner about Bill C-6 but we do not think the amendments at report stage go nearly far enough to addressing all of them.

Our three major concerns are around the safety management systems. As I have already noted, the airline industry would be permitted to increasingly define the safety level of its operations. I think all of us would see some flaw in allowing that to happen. We are concerned that there would be no spokesperson for the travelling public to ensure that there is another standard applied to those operations.

We also know that heightened secrecy would be allowed because of this legislation. It would restrict access to information on the safety performances of airlines. Certainly, in a situation where we are turning that over to airlines, that is of great concern. Any more secrecy is not appropriate.

We also know that the whistleblower protection included in this legislation for employees would not be strong enough to allow an employee who sees a serious concern about safety to make that public and seek a resolution to that where it has not been given appropriate attention by the company, and that is not acceptable either.

We also see that there is a lack of accountability overall for airlines in this because it would give them, I think, far too many chances to voluntarily correct problems, that it would set deadlines in a timely fashion rather than on an immediate or urgent or—

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great anticipation that I rise to speak to Bill C-6. This is an opportunity for members of Parliament to deal with an issue that many of our constituents do not have the time or the ability to delve into this type of legislation, but yet it impacts their lives in a serious way.

The region I represent in northwestern British Columbia is often described as remote. It is certainly spread out. When I return to my constituency, I use any one of a number of seven different airports to access the communities and villages that I serve and represent. Air safety is one of the most important issues for the constituents who I represent.

It goes without saying that the work of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster is laudable and commendable due to his unending energy in trying to squeeze out of the government and the other opposition parties better legislation. We all know that at the end of the day, regardless of partisan interests, we only want to promote legislation that most protects the health and safety of Canadians. Members of Parliament only want legislation that properly balances the powers that be within the country and those interests of the voters who we represent.

Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is a broad, sweeping bill. It is a bill that has had some long history of debate. It has been pushed by various governments, previous Conservative and Liberal governments, and now the current Conservative government. Each time the bill is presented, the part which is most desperately flawed pertains to the interests of average Canadians.

Representatives from the industry are always front and centre and are always well represented and well rehearsed in the things that they want primarily around the issue of self-regulation and them being able to monitor themselves and their safety record. Whereas, the bill does not balance properly on the side of constituents, flyers, people who rely upon air travel and depend upon it.

Often the captain will come on the intercom and comment that the most dangerous thing we will do that day is drive to and from the airport and that the flying is incredibly safe. This is an unbelievably important part of the airline industry.

Anyone who knows the history of the airline industry in North America, the first and most important thing it had to address and deal with was the concept that this was a dangerous activity. For many people initially, the idea of getting into a plane was considered very dangerous and it was. There were very few regulations and safety requirements, much like it was getting into an automobile when they were first invented, but there was an evolution. We saw an evolution in regulations, unfortunately often driven by accidents.

When an air accident would occur, the transportation and safety review board, or whatever incarnation there was at the time, would come on to the scene, review what had happened and then make recommendations to the government, which it could enshrine either in legislation or regulations, but something that would then protect the public. This would then give greater assurance to future travellers that they and their families would be safe.

There has been a natural tension and while potentially healthy, it also has the potential for great harm. That tension is between the air carriers, the companies involved, particularly the two major national ones, and their interests. Generally speaking, if we speak of fiduciary responsibilities, it is the maximization of profit for their shareholders. That is what their board and corporate governance structure is meant to do. It is meant to allow the greatest benefit derived for all those who have invested in their companies. This is matched off against the need for proper regulations and safety requirements. Lo and behold, sometimes safety actually costs money and time.

To ensure that something is safe and it is something we can all live by, it has to be done right. It has to be fixed right. It has to be of the highest quality and standards.

Many members of Parliament, as this session ends, will be considering their travel plans. Many of us have to board an airplane. In all the confusion in trying to get onboard that airplane, one thing we do not often think about. We assume our travel experience, while it will be potentially long and annoying, because we are on these things all the time, will be safe. That is something that goes without saying because there have been relatively few accidents in the Canadian airline industry.

The tension that exists and that is not properly balanced within Bill C-6 is between the role of government and the role of the private sector. Government has no right and no business telling the airline industry how to run a maximizing profit industry. That is the responsibility of the airline executives, management and consulting crews.

The government's responsibility is to balance those interests with the interests and safety of Canadians. Canadians trust our ability and our tenacity to ensure we never pass laws that would put them in any jeopardy.

Lo and behold, this bill moves toward a self-monitoring, a self-regulating and a self-inspecting regime. This would allow the industry to make up rules and decide what level of risk and safety would be permissible. The industry's sole and primary interest is not only making a profit. The industry's interests are mixed. Ours is to allow a healthy industry to exist while at the same time balance the public benefit.

There are two analogies that I would like to mention to members and they work best for my region in northern British Columbia. One is in the forestry sector and the other is in the train sector.

Many of the rail systems in Canada, particularly in British Columbia, for convenience sake or just by fate of history often run beside many of our major waterways. Over the last number of years, we have seen an increasing rate of serious train accidents, which have caused us grave concern. Many of these trains pass right through our towns and our communities, sometimes within 100 feet of people's homes. The buffer between having a safe and reliable train system and having one that causes great harm is not great. There is not a lot of space.

As the industry has moved toward self-regulation, self-monitoring, deciding within its own confines what is safe and not safe, exactly what the airline industry is asking for, the accident rate goes up.

I speak with rail workers every day when I am in my constituency of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. They privately talk to me about what is going on within their industry. They tell me that the drive toward the bottom line has become intense. The basic safety mechanisms that have been developed over time, often based upon accidents, have not been made out of thin area. Inspectors go on site after a major accident and they design a safety protocol after they realize what went wrong. That is meant to happen. That is the reason we go about these things.

When an industry is moved toward deregulation and self-monitoring, all those regulations come into question. All those safety mechanisms potentially go off the books. If an industry feels it is cutting too much into its bottom line, it can decide that a particular safety clause designed back in 1985 no longer pertains and it costs $1 million a year, and it will let that clause slide.

With no transparency at all existing within the bill for the airline industry, Canadians will not know what safety regulations have been taken out. In the future imagined by this bill, there will be no way of knowing whether all the safety procedures were taken or not. It was not up to any regulator to decide; it was up to the industry to decide. While we all hope that safety is important to the industry, with this conflict of interest built within the bill, it is not a risk that we can take.

The other sector that is important in our region is the forestry sector. Whenever there was a fatality within the forestry sector, inspectors would go to the accident site to find out what went wrong. They decided that certain safety measures had to be put in place to prevent the future loss of life. It was shown that rules and protocols were necessary.

When we moved to a deregulated forestry sector, when we moved to a place where health and safety requirements were placed in the hands of the company with a profit motive, there was a huge spike in the number of forestry fatalities in British Columbia. There were 50 last year. Those 50 lives could have been saved.

What we need to do at this moment is to reconsider the bill from top to bottom, move the amendments that the NDP has called for and then build something that we can all be proud of. It should not be to the rush of some limit of time but something that we know will keep Canadians safe.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill. I want to begin with a brief citation from an article that appeared in the Toronto Star about a year ago:

Jetsgo, which offered tickets as low as $1, had repeated mechanical breakdowns, shoddy maintenance practices, inexperienced pilots and midair mishaps. Transport Canada, which is mandated to keep Canada's skies safe, knew of the problems, but for 2 1/2 years dismissed the troubles as the growing pains of a start-up operator. Only after a near-crash in Calgary in January 2005 did it take tough action, but even after a special inspection the next month revealed serious trouble, the regulator continued to publicly tout the airline as "safe."

I raise this because the bill we are dealing with today, Bill C-6, is about health and safety. It is about the health and safety of the public in the airline sector. It is about the safety of people who work in this sector. Bill C-6 would not address the situation the article describes with Jetsgo, which subsequently did go bankrupt, but it would make this situation worse.

We have seen, certainly for more than the last two decades, a period of deregulation and privatization, increasing transfer over to the private sector of oversight and enforcement of various rules. I do remember the pre-deregulation period in the transportation sector. The public was assured and the airline industry was assured that there would be no compromise on safety, that public safety was paramount and that even though companies were to be privatized and there was to be deregulation in terms of fares and routes, there would not be deregulation of the public good when it came to safety, that that would never happen.

Today we have Bill C-6 which would do just that. I want to review what it is that Bill C-6 will do. It will enshrine what is called safety management systems and it will enshrine them so that the companies themselves in effect will be supervising their own safety compliance. It transfers increasing responsibility over to the industry itself to set and enforce its own standards. It is designed not to enhance the public safety or security in the airline industry. What it will do is help Transport Canada deal with limited declining resources and projected declining numbers of airline safety inspectors due to retirements.

Certainly the Canadian public wants to be assured that their safety is paramount and is not compromised in dealing with administrative concerns about lack of resources or demographic changes among the inspectors because of retirements. Canadians have a great deal to be concerned about with this legislation. Self-enforcement when it comes to public safety in the airline sector is simply unacceptable.

It began in the U.S., but it has expanded to Canada and to many other countries. We have seen with deregulation absolutely cutthroat competition in the airline sector. I have worked in this sector. I have seen the changes that have taken place over the last several years.

The kind of service that has been offered to the travelling public has changed dramatically. Certainly no one would want to see their safety treated as the change in meal service has been treated on the airlines. No one wants to go from a full breakfast on Air Canada to peanuts and have their safety treated in a similar fashion. However, we are finding this incredible cutthroat competition in the airline sector.

When it comes to food, bringing one's own lunch, breakfast or dinner is not a big deal and people are doing it. However, when it comes to public safety and security, we do not want public safety and security to be subject to cutthroat competition.

Competition has been exacerbated by high fuel prices which have squeezed the airline industry even further. With the high prices of fuel combined with cutthroat competition, airlines are being driven into the ground. The industry has been littered with bankrupt airlines going back a number of years.

There is one area in which we do not want airlines to compete. In that incredibly fierce competitive environment, the one area we want completely protected from cutthroat competition surely is public safety.

We know there have been a number of close calls over the years, but generally, I think the travelling public feels fairly confident in the airlines when it comes to public safety. This goes back to the reassurance that Canadians had prior to airline deregulation and privatization that whatever happened, public safety would be paramount.

The issue we are raising around Bill C-6 is the concern that public safety will no longer be paramount. That bedrock confidence Canadians have in the safety and security of their airlines can no longer be resting on absolutely firm ground as it has been in the past.

I do want to commend my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster for the tremendous work he has done in the transport committee in trying to amend what is a very bad bill. He has been successful in making a number of positive changes that have tightened this bill to some degree, but not to the point where the public can have assurance that their safety is going to be completely uncompromised. For that reason, I am rising to oppose this bill. I think it is not in the best interests of Canadians.

We are a vast country that was built on effective transportation. Certainly the railway from sea to sea and airlines in the 20th and 21st centuries have allowed Canadians to stay connected with one another. For our country more than any other country in the world to compromise public safety with a bill like this by transferring responsibility for safety enforcement to the very companies that are in this cutthroat competition in a deregulated environment, I believe is wrong.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Justice Virgil Moshansky said:

This is an ominous sign for the future of air safety in Canada, particularly if Bill C-6 is allowed to proceed...

When people like the hon. Justice Moshansky are raising serious concerns, why are the Conservatives doing this? Why are they being so irresponsible?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-6. This is very much a consequential act, which would make a significant change in the airline industry.

Today we are debating a series of amendments to Bill C-6 that were introduced to make it a better bill, but the government has decided to take out some of those amendments, water down the bill and water down safety requirements for the airline industry in this country, in particular for Air Canada as well as WestJet, which quite frankly did a good job of lobbying to get less accountability to the public into the system.

It is important in the debate to talk about the overall situation in manufacturing and also connect that to why Canadians and Canadian consumers deserve greater accountability. It is perplexing why the government wants to continually take those types of amendments out of legislation.

Most recently it did this with regard to the rail transportation amendments, and once again it has taken out provisions for accountability for the airline industry in regard to providing full information in terms of disclosure about the ticket, the price, the charge, the fees and all those different and often hidden charges that are in the system. The government took those out of the previous bill, which is puzzling.

In the previous bill, the government also took out the opportunity for neighbourhoods to have mediation when there is a dispute with rail properties and their usage. I do not understand why the government would want to take away these civil liberties that consumers really deserve and should have our open market society.

These provisions, which were introduced by the NDP, are important. My colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, deserves a lot of credit for working hard on the bill. He was able to work with other opposition parties to change the bill significantly in favour of the public, but we now are seeing the erosion of those changes, and in particular a safety management system that really will give the industry carte blanche in terms of its operation and the actual application of reporting safety hazards and problems in the airline industry.

Even when there are violations, and I will get into some of the particulars later, the industry actually gets a get out of jail free card. It can make self-correcting measures. At the same time, this will do nothing to punish a race to the bottom, which can happen in this industry.

We have been fortunate. The airline industry rebounded somewhat in this country after 9/11. We have had significant problems and challenges. Extra fees were added for security as well as other types of operations. There have been increased costs for fuel and other types of factors that have really challenged the industry.

The industry has done a good job of working its way back, but at the same time it does not take away from the fact that we do not want to have less accountability, fewer restrictions, and less opportunity for the public to get information about safety issues.

Today, the parliamentary secretary, who was actually the chair of the industry committee, tabled a report from our counterfeiting study that our industry committee just concluded. Part of the testimony we heard was that counterfeit parts are being used by current airlines and other industries. We heard that not only in terms of aerospace, but also, for example, in regard to circuit breakers that were knock-offs and ripoffs and were being used in hospitals, which can affect Canadian patients. If we have less reliable and unaccountable products as part of the system of managing our hospitals, what takes place when there is a problem? There is no accountability.

We heard evidence in the industry committee that we are getting knock-off parts that are being used in the aeronautics industry. Why would we allow this to continue? The recommendation of our committee is to clamp down on some of the counterfeiting that is out there and to make people more accountable, not only those who are procuring the counterfeit products but also those who are the distributors of those products and, lastly, the companies and the countries that are allowing this to be perpetrated.

At the same time, by removing accountability, we are now going to be introducing a system that will allow a company not to have to report to the department to the fullest extent possible when we have airline industry problems. That is an issue. As a young father, I have brought my daughter here to the House of Commons for this last week. We flew here. One thinks about the safety issue. I do not like to fly as it is. I have never enjoyed that part of this job, but at the same time, one gets over it.

However, what one does hope is that we have the highest degree of safety standards. I have confidence in the airline providers that we have had, but at the same time we know that at times there have been providers that have actually taken out safety requirements or have had improper practices that have put people at risk, not only in this country but around the world.

We have had that happen in this country, too, and Jetsgo, for example, is an oft-cited case in which thousands of passengers got on planes that had problems. The reporting and the accountability were not up to snuff in terms of how I would feel about it.

When we get on a plane we want to feel that there will be the best practices possible. Those best practices come from healthy competition but also from the accountability of the consumer being able to make the right choice about how they want to spend their money and also knowing the value of that related to the product they have. Some of it is safety driven. Having that opportunity to select safety as a priority for one's purchasing is something that consumers across the country deserve, not only in aerospace but also in automobiles and other types of manufactured devices.

We can see that things do get through the system. Again, on counterfeiting, right now we see a toothpaste that was in Canadian stores. It was poison, quite frankly. Also, my son was one of those persons who had a Thomas the tank engine train that was painted with lead-based paint from a company in China that was importing it into Canada.

We can see that not only are we getting some of these products into the country—and our laws at the border to regulate and inspect them are deficient—but they are getting into our system. This has penetrated into our aerospace system, as was shown by the evidence presented at the industry, science and technology study on counterfeiting. Why, then, would we change Bill C-6 to take out provisions that would provide for less accountability when we need it most right now?

That is important. Once again, consumers should have the opportunity to evaluate and equate the safety of airlines when they are making a purchase. It should be just like they do it for comfort. I do not believe the bill does us a service in that regard. I am very troubled by the fact that we would do it when we have a situation emerging in Canada that has been identified as a priority.

It is important to note that on the counterfeiting study we have all party unanimous consent on a series of recommendations. That is important, because we know that there is a public priority for those recommendations. That is why I am troubled that the government wants to move away from that accountability.

As for the corporate responsibility, when we look at the history of it in this country, it has had some unique things that are quite puzzling. It was only a few years back that we were able to wrestle down the Liberal government to get it to change the tax deductibility of corporate fines and penalties.

Let us imagine that. If a company polluted or was caught in some type of business practice, went through the court system, was fined, penalized—the whole judicial review—it then wrote off up to 50% of the fine as a business related expense. If in their corporate plans companies used pollution discharge that is illegal or used products or services that were counterfeit or certainly not at the industry standard where they were supposed to be, they would actually be allowed to write off 50% of that.

I will conclude with this. There are other important issues in the bill. They involve everything, even whistleblower protection, which is being usurped; it is conditional in the bill, which makes no sense at all. We fought across the country to get whistleblower protection here in Ottawa and there are still some problems with it, so taking that away from another important bill makes no sense whatsoever.

To conclude, let me say that this is a plea to the government. We do not want to have our transportation systems, which business travel and passenger travel depend on so much, put under a cloud that could create further problems for our productivity.

That is important to note because if there is a significant safety problem as a result of this bill and accountability is brought to bear on those who brought it here, other people will pay, people other than the injured and the people who rely upon the practice or the business itself. Other people will lose out as well. That is why we need to change this bill and make it better, like the way it was.

The House resumed from June 19 consideration of Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No.1.

Motions in Amendment

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the criticism that we have is focussed on the unprecedented and unacceptable decline in regulatory oversight by Transport Canada contemplated by Bill C-6, a bill that would allow a greater ability of the airline industry to set and enforce its own safety standards out of public sight and scrutiny. Those were the legitimate grievances that we brought forward.

The NDP moved more amendments than any of the other parties and we stuck to them, forced them through and worked with them, while the Liberals shed theirs as it was convenient after they had made the splash that they had put forward amendments.

We stuck to ours and got them through. We worked the committee as it should. However, we were disappointed with the Tory amendment today which would gut air safety. It is worth noting an article in The Hamilton Spectator in which retired Alberta justice, Virgil Moshansky, said:

I think it is very troubling that the government has tabled a motion that has gutted the very critical amendments to Bill C-6, approved by the committee after four months of hearings.

We concur that it is very troubling and that it should be condemned and voted against in this particular House of Commons. The Liberals are supporting the Conservatives' amendment to gut the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am standing as a member of the party that introduced a bill like this in the last Parliament. I take exception to a member suggesting that there was collusion between the Liberal Party and the governing party to ram a bill through without debate.

The truth of the matter, if the member can ever recognize it, is that there were four months of witnesses, debates and scrutiny that surfaced in the form of a series of amendments now before the House and the only party that voted against all of the amendments proposed by all the interested parties, all of the industry sectors, all of the labour unions and all of the client representatives was none other than the NDP.

In fact, today we are looking at a series of NDP motions that are doing exactly what the member is accusing the government of doing, which is a series of motions to gut the amended bill. The worst offender of them all is the clause that asks to remove clause 12. Clause 12 was asked by Judge Moshansky to be maintained and strengthened in order to give substance to Bill C-6 and the member from the NDP on the committee decided to say no, that they will not have that. Such hypocrisy, it is incredible.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join the debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I want to begin by recognizing and paying tribute to my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster and the transport critic for the New Democratic Party, for being a stalwart champion of the interests of the consumer during this lengthy debate, the study of Bill C-6. It is generally agreed he has been a leader among the opposition parties to ensure that the voice and interests of Canadians are put front and centre as we go through this whole interesting debate about air transportation safety.

We are very concerned that both the tone and the content of Bill C-6 are really geared toward the financial bottom lines of these air transportation carriers and we could put at risk, or at least put back in the order of priority, the best interests of Canadians.

I should note that my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, worked in collaboration with stakeholders such as the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which represents a great many airline personnel and workers, and IAMAW, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Both these unions have advocated on behalf of the best interests of their own members, but also the best interests of the public at large when it comes to any changes that we make to the air transportation system.

A number of amendments were made at the committee stage, put forward by my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. That is perhaps why so many of us are taken aback today. We made amendments at committee that we believed were progress, with the cooperation of the various stakeholders such as the unions. However, then today, we find the federal Minister of Transport making a bid to sweep aside the changes to the airline bill, which were intended to ensure safety in the skies.

We find it very troubling that the government has tabled a motion to gut the very critical amendments to Bill C-6, which my colleague, Burnaby—New Westminster, and other members of the transport committee so diligently put in place. We cannot understand how a minister of transport, in all good conscience, could undermine the work of the committee. Its earnest interest was simply to do what was right for Canadians. It certainly has my colleague, the NDP transport critic, scratching his head and wondering what possible motivation there could be. What possibly could be driving the government to, if anything, back away from safety as priority number one. It is a grave concern to us.

We are very critical of Bill C-6 in its current form. There are a number of issues, in fact too many issues for me to deal with in any depth in the 10 minutes that have been allotted to me. I will point out some of the concerns in which I have a particular interest. One is Bill C-6, as contemplated by the government, will actually undermine and reduce the freedom of information, the freedom of Canadians to know what the safety situation is of airlines, in that it withdraws seven sections of the act from the Access to Information Act.

I sit on the committee that is responsible for privacy, ethics and access to information. It troubles me greatly to see government in any of its activities pull back from freedom of information. On those grounds alone, I would criticize the bill. The public has a right to know what the government is up to and surely the public has a right to know the safety and maintenance information about airlines. Airlines and carriers of the general public are not just the average private business.

Canadians have a right to be more involved in airline safety and they certainly need more thorough information. I am critical that Bill C-6 would remove sections from the scrutiny of the Canadian public through freedom of information laws.

I am also critical that the systems maintenance regime would now be put under the scrutiny of the airlines. We believe this is a stepping back again of government scrutiny and government supervision of airline safety management and essentially the airline industry would be permitted to increasingly define its own safety level of its operations.

One would think that the airline would make this a priority and that safety interests would be the airlines' top key concern and priority, but in our experience it is a legitimate role of government to take responsibility for those things.

I am also very concerned that another element of this bill would become very weak or in fact non-existent, and that is the whistleblower protection. While a form of whistleblower protection for employees has been introduced, there is no effective redress mechanism for employees who might suffer reprisals as a result of blowing the whistle.

I would remind members that this is one industry sector about which, for heaven's sake, the public has a right to know. The public has an interest in knowing if there are any shortcomings in the maintenance regime, and whistleblowers should be rewarded, not criticized and certainly not suffer any form of reprisals. Those three things, piled together, give more than ample reason to be critical of Bill C-6.

The bill has a rather rocky history in that it was introduced in the last Parliament by a senator in fact. It came to the House first known as Bill S-33, introduced by the other place. We are always suspect, frankly, when bills come to us through that back door mechanism. After a great deal of debate there, it was later reintroduced as Bill C-62 under the Liberal regime in September 2005, but it died on the order paper and did not go past first reading.

When we came to it in this particular Parliament, I note that a great deal of time has been spent on this already. It was introduced on April 3, 2006 as Bill C-6. After a brief staff meeting, the NDP was disappointed that the Conservatives and the Liberals initially struck a deal to pass Bill C-6 without any further amendments. This is why I began my remarks by complimenting my colleague, the member for Burnaby—Douglas, for the yeoman's job he did, virtually alone at the committee, to overturn that alliance that was put together by the ruling party and the official opposition that they would somehow ram Bill C-6 through in its flawed state.

There was clearly a lack of consultation with the stakeholders or these many amendments would not have been developed. I cannot imagine any government going forward with legislation like this without doing a comprehensive consultation with groups like CUPE and the IAM. When we received it back today and realized that this was not only not in its original form but that the amendments made at committee would be stripped back and undermined by the minister and that the Tory amendments intend to gut air safety, we could not help but stand up and be critical.

People will notice that a number of speakers from the NDP are speaking back to back on this bill because the public has a right to know and the public deserves to know. The public should know what is going on in our air transportation safety system and I do not believe, if it were left to the devices of the ruling party and its partners in crime, the official opposition, which has been absent, AWOL as it were, in terms of doing its job as official opposition and bringing the government to task for the glaring problems and oversights with this--

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's remarks. I am alive today because of aviation safety. My career has been in aviation. I have spent a lot of time in the front end of airplanes and now I spend a lot more time in the back end of airplanes. I know the guys who are in the front end of the airplanes in which I fly today. I do not have any problem with getting on any of their airplanes at any time. I always feel I am in safe hands.

The member made a couple of suggestions, as did other members of her party, that somehow there is a laissez-faire attitude toward safety, particularly in the United States. That is just hogwash.

Aviation is about risk management, with the emphasis on management and on safety. Those members somehow seem to think we are taking away whistleblower protection. In fact, Bill C-6 talks about non-punitive voluntary reporting. I am not sure what the member does not understand about non-punitive.

She also talks about the bottom line and suggests that airlines are only interested in making money. Airlines are interested in making money, but I suggest that the worst attack on an airline's bottom line would be the lawsuits, the loss of reputation and everything that goes with that as a result of a major aircraft accident, loss of life and so on. Airlines are very good regulators because that is their bottom line.

Does my hon. friend understand the relationship between safety and the bottom line from the positive point of view of the necessity to protect safety to protect the bottom line?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in this debate on air safety. There is reason, though, to wonder why the government wants to rush this bill through despite its many flaws. I think that Canadians are right to be concerned. They should be seriously concerned about this bill.

It seems that people can say anything these days and get anything passed so long as it will reduce government involvement, as if that were a good thing in itself, without any care for the consequences. In this case, the consequences are very serious because public safety is at stake. That is something the government has apparently forgotten. It would rather worry about the profits of the big corporations than the safety of the general public. We should wonder, though, what the effects will be on public safety.

Canada has often been recognized—as other hon. members have said—as a leader in the field of public safety. There is an expression that when something is finally perfect, people often want to start changing it. In this case too, I have the feeling that the changes are for the worse.

This morning, my hon. colleague, our transport critic, who has done a lot of work on this, compared what happened in the railway system with what could happen in the airline industry if the government’s proposed amendments are passed.

In British Columbia where I come from, there have been many accidents, sometimes virtually weekly, on the railways. We know that these accidents started to increase after the safety system was simply handed over to the companies. The government more or less just offloaded its responsibilities.

The law that is proposed in Bill C-6 contains many flaws. The policy issue that is important to note is that this will have impact on Canadians who travel by air. The financial bottom lines of Air Canada, WestJet and others have been preferred and that is going to be the factor in setting safety levels in the sky.

Transport Canada will be relegated to a more distant role as a general overseer of safety management systems. That is why I asked, with the government saying it is going to reduce government intervention, is that in itself a good thing when public security is being sidelined for commercial interests?

Let us talk a bit about the impacts of Bill C-6. It seems to enshrine the safety management systems which allow industries to decide the level of risk they are willing to accept, tolerable levels of risk in their operations, rather than abide by the level of safety established by the minister acting in the public interest. Safety management systems allow the government to transfer increasing responsibility to the industry itself to set and enforce its own safety standards.

The government seems to think that because it says something it makes it true. We have seen that all too often in the way the government has acted on accountability and in the way it has acted on Bill C-30 in tackling environmental issues. The government takes half measures and proclaims it has acted in the interest of public. Canadians are not fooled by this kind of talk.

The bill does not exempt whistleblowers. A worker who identifies a problem, for example, a loose wing nut, and I will not talk about the kinds of wing nuts, reports it and no action is taken, he or she will be silenced. That is a problem with what the government has proposed.

Furthermore, the government would like us to think that companies will automatically report any problems to the public. Any of us who have negotiated with the private sector knows there are many financial interests to protect. The private sector is very guarded in anything that will affect its financial bottom line. I fear very much for transparency, for what Canadians will find out about some of the problems that can occur.

While the NDP agreed to an amendment in the transportation committee, which emphasizes reduction of risk to the lowest possible level rather than tolerating risk, we are still concerned about the delegation of safety to corporations. Acting in the public interest is still, as I see it, the responsibility of the government. It is not the responsibility of corporations. Their responsibility is to make money. By giving that responsibility over to corporations, the government is abdicating its own responsibilities.

Adequate safety costs money. Safety management systems will foster a tendency to cut corners in a very competitive aviation market racked with high fuel prices. What will happen to safety when the need to make a profit and save money is paramount? I do not think the bill adds to that and it does not answer that question adequately.

I will close by asking one last question. What happened to the government's responsibility to protect public interest?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague not only for his question but for the work he has done on this issue. I would submit that if my friend from B.C. had not been as tenacious and vigilant on Bill C-6, Canadians would not know about the problems that are in the bill. In fact, it reminds me of the softwood sellout.

To answer the member's question, I do not know why the government wants to put all of this important aeronautic safety information in a locked box for no one other than those who are involved in the industry to know about. It really begs the question as to whose side the government is on. Is it on the side of everyday Canadians or is it on the side of citizens who every day put their trust in government, in fact in all of us, to ensure air safety?

Yesterday we saw this whole idea of a no-fly list which has been given attention and prominence by the government, when in fact what it should be doing is sharpening its pencils, or in fact taking out erasers and doing this bill over again because it is not up to speed and not good enough for Canadians.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings that I rise today to speak to this bill. I say that because we should not have to deal with this kind of inferior legislation, particularly when we are looking at the safety of our citizens, our constituents.

We are entrusted with the responsibility to make public policy and to make legislation that takes into account many different aspects and facets when we look at the bills that have been in front of us recently, be it on trade bills or on voting bills. One of the most important facets in the area of transportation is safety. Protecting the safety of Canadians is one of the key issues that we are here to deal with in this bill.

The reason the NDP has put forward so many amendments and the reason we are standing today to speak to the bill is that if the bill were to go ahead without any changes or amendments it would be a colossal disaster.

It is incumbent upon all of us to foresee, and perhaps it is the unintended consequences of the government, but we need to foresee the consequences of any legislation that passes in this place. On Bill C-6, we need to look at the consequences for air safety.

An issue that has been important in my riding is the integrity of being able to support those men and women who work in our public service to come forward and be protected when they see wrongdoing happening. We know it in the popular term as whistleblowing.

I was proud to work with my colleague from Winnipeg Centre and other colleagues in this place on the committee dealing with the accountability act, Bill C-2, to strengthen whistleblower legislation. We believed it should have gone further but we made some important and positive changes.

When I see this bill, one of the things that stands out that will shock and should appall many Canadians is what the bill does. It takes away that whistleblower protection. We are not talking about maintenance of bicycles, as important as that is. We are talking here about aviation safety. We are talking about very complex mechanisms that most of us would not have the slightest idea of how to get around, whereas with bicycle repair we might.

We need to ensure that those men and women who see wrongdoing are protected. That is a value and a principle that I thought the government believed in. If we listen to the rhetoric, it suggests that it does but then we look at this legislation and we see that it does not seem to be the case.

It was already mentioned by my friend from Hamilton that many people have spoken out. They are not lay people. They are experts in the field. They are telling us that Bill C-6 does not get the job done. They are saying that Bill C-6 opens up, not only the safety of Canadians but the reputation that our country has on the world stage.

My understanding of the bill is that not even our friends to the south, who perhaps have more of a laissez-faire view of things like air safety, would contemplate going this far. It really begs the question as to why we would believe that, in the area of air safety and this idea of changing things to this extent, we would be better off going with less control and oversight than our friends to the south and in other jurisdictions. It really does beg the question of what we believe we know better than others.

I certainly would not submit to the House that we should do things our own way. Our party suggests that the Canadian way is often the better way of going about things. However, when we are talking about aeronautics and aeronautic safety and we look at this industry, and the fact that it is global in proportion and needs to be carefully viewed, we have to look at this bill and ask, “What is it that the government believes it is helping Canadians with?”

Again, I go back to experts in the field and, if I may, cite an article that I believe has already been referenced but is one that I think bears repeating. The headline says it all: “Judge calls for review of 'sliding' air safety”. I think that says a lot about where we are going here.

We know that the 1989 report on the Dryden crash in which 24 people were killed led to many improvements in air safety. We had fears, and I remember that instance very well, that we were in fact backsliding, that we needed to strengthen air safety. We heard from one of the authors of the report who looked at air safety, and the quote is pretty straightforward:

I believe the government is moving away from more vigorous inspection and enforcement strictly as a cost-cutting measure, much as was done in the mid- and late-1980s preceding the Dryden crash.

If that is not a call for oversight and to review more thoroughly this file, I do not what is. What the good judge was saying, and he was given an Order of Canada for his work in this area, was to not repeat the mistakes of the past. When we allow things to be deregulated without the proper oversight, without protection, for instance, as already mentioned for whistleblowers, we are essentially saying that it is okay to allow for further crashes, for further mishaps.

I point to what we have seen in the rail industry as of late. Since we have given over rail maintenance, and it is not regulated to the extent it should have been, we have seen, and we just have to turn on the radio or read the paper, more crashes and derailments, be it passenger or cargo trains.

I want members to think about this because I think it is important. There is a connection between what has happened with rail safety and what is contemplated with aeronautic safety in Bill C-6. It is the following proposition. When we had the tools and the oversight, and we had the regulation involved in rail safety, we were able to be more nimble, to be stronger in our response when we had instances where rail safety was failing. We had citizens and people, be it in unions or in management, et cetera, who were able to cite problems in rail safety, be it at crossings or, and we see this presently, with cargo trains that have too many cars on their load.

We need to do something about it. It used to be that we had the public sector there to respond. Unfortunately, what we did is we gave that up. We gave away the tools to properly respond vis-à-vis rail safety.

What has been the consequence of that? As I said, just turn on the radio, read the paper, and look at the evening news, the consequence is cargo and passenger derailments. There is a lack of confidence. At the very time we need to be more reliant on our rail system, we now have problems with rail safety.

In fact, many of my friends who would like to see our government go further in building the capacity for more rail as a form of transportation see that we have problems because of lack of oversight. So, let us take that lesson from the problems with rail safety and oversight, and the fact we gave that up and gave it away, and let us take a look at—

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with very strong concerns regarding Bill C-6. We heard earlier how this bill has come back to haunt this place on several occasions. It began in the other place where it was first introduced, on May 16, 2005, if I recall correctly. At that time the Senate Speaker withdrew the bill because it had funding implications which of course were not appropriate. The government of the day subsequently followed with Bill C-62.

The current bill that is before this place today, rather than improving safety standards, the safety management system will allow the airlines to decide what level of risk they are prepared to take. Each member of the House travels regularly. I wonder how members are going to feel as they board the planes knowing that a lot of the accountability is no longer there and that the industry itself, an industry that is under extreme financial pressures, is going to decide what maintenance to do and when to do it. For myself that raises some very tremendous concerns.

Almost daily in this place we hear government members talk about accountability and in various areas we agree with them. We hear about accountability that has to do with a violent offender and whether people have a right to know when the violent offender is in their community and things of that nature.

Section 7 of Bill C-6 flies in the face of all of those statements. We hear the Conservatives going on ad nauseam about accountability, but section 7 takes away the right of Canadians to have access to information. Let us think about that for a moment.

Recently at the Hamilton airport there were two incidents where planes that were set to fly overseas had to return to the airport. The very next day in the Hamilton Spectator and other news media across the country, there was a story which told what had gone on and what was being done to account to the passengers and allow them to have some peace of mind as they set about their journey later on.

If that company had not understood that somewhere behind the scenes there was a sense of accountability, where the company knew that whatever decisions were made regarding those flights would come back and rest on its shoulders in the near future, perhaps those stories and the accounts from that company might have been less forthcoming with the information as to what had happened and what went wrong.

It is amazing to me that the government would actually entrust the safety of Canadians to this industry. It is not that the industry has proven to be irresponsible, and I am not suggesting that, but on the other hand when they are looking at the balance sheet and they have shareholders and people with great interest in the bottom line where, is the cut-off point? Where does it become truly in the interest of the public as opposed to the interest of the company when they are trying to decide the cuts?

I often refer to a very wise, I would even go so far as to call him a sage, writer. His name is Kris Kristofferson. He wrote songs in the 1960s and 1970s and still is a well-known performer around the world today. In fact, he is an activist on many fronts. By the way, he is no relationship to the member for Hamilton Centre. He wrote in the 1970s that the law is for the protection of the people.

In my experience, and I think of many members of the House as we review the legislation that has evolved through this place over many years, we would agree with that statement, that the law is for the protection of the people, but in this case with Bill C-6, is that truly the case? We have to ask ourselves that. I am not so sure. In fact, I cannot quite understand how they could get to this place.

Many members present will likely remember the confrontation in the United States in the 1980s between President Ronald Reagan and the air traffic controllers. At the time, Mr. Reagan took what I think was an amazing stand when he actually had all the air traffic controllers in that country fired. How inconsiderate, to say the least, to the safety of the public, but following that there was the deregulation of the airlines in the U.S. and the number of air crashes and near misses went up tremendously. I am very concerned that we are facing the same thing in this country.

There are all kinds of problems when we look at the various information that comes to us. We talk about Jetsgo's problems and how it was ignored and the probe into the death of the discount airline not that long ago and how it revealed shortcomings in existing legislation and here we are talking about weakening the legislation that protects people.

The NDP in committee put forward a number of amendments and one was a requirement for the minister to maintain a program of oversight and surveillance of aviation safety in order to achieve the highest level of safety, and that was passed. I cannot imagine a person in this place who would disagree with something as fundamental as the government having accountability and authority over the airlines to ensure they follow safety practices.

Coming from the labour movement, I will give an example that I use quite often. We have worker health and safety committees throughout the workplaces in Ontario. I will use a hospital as an example. Many hospitals are moving to offloading or contracting out the health services because they see it as a fundamental work and that it is easy for someone to come in to do. Today, when a CUPE member or an SEI member is doing the work, when people go to the hospital and see a problem they take it to their health and safety committee which carries it to the company where it gets a response. Hopefully, in due course, whatever the issue is it gets resolved.

If workers are there earning minimum wage, that worker will see that same thing but because they are under the gun of the low wage, the lack of accountability and not having that health and safety committee to protect their interests, they will simply keep their head down and keep working. Whatever the problem is remains and grows and grows. In the hospital systems throughout this country we are fighting varying forms of bacteria and other things that are taking residence in the hospitals.

Let us take that same view of health and safety to the airline industry. When we are flying at 35,000 feet we want to be sure that the person who has worked on that aircraft has followed every bit of due diligence and has had no directives to cut corners or the benign neglect that can come from legislation like this where the employer will tell employees that they have so many minutes to get that aircraft ready.

I do not know if members are aware of this but the people who put the aircraft in the air and the ticket people who pass us on to the airlines are not well-paid. Air Canada has contracted out that work and if the aircraft is late in leaving they are not even paid. The emphasis is on getting the plane into the air. If we transfer that same kind of thinking to the mechanics, the pilots and the ground crews, we will be putting the airlines at risk, which is precisely what Bill C-6 does. It opens a door at all levels and puts the Canadian public at risk, and we cannot have that. I assume and expect that the members present will totally disagree with Bill C-6.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, very clearly the safety of airlines is compromised by the very weak whistleblower piece in Bill C-6. It is clear to me that the Americans understand that employees must be protected. When it comes to losing their jobs, being reprimanded, or finding themselves out in the cold, many employees think about the security of their families and feel obligated to consider the loss of a job and the consequences on the family first.

Unfortunately, it is very cold comfort for those of us who utilize airlines in this country. It is absolutely essential that whistleblowers, airline employees, be able to report with impunity the problems they see. The risks are incredible.

I am sure members have found themselves on airplanes in the last little while. That feeling of vulnerability is profound in terms of travelling by that mode of transportation. No matter what the record may say, we are talking about the past in terms of airline security. We are not talking about a new regime which would occur under Bill C-6.

There has to be security for workers, pilots and those who would do their duty to the travelling public. There has to be stronger whistleblower protection. That is a given. We do not see that in Bill C-6.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like my NDP colleague, I find the bill seriously flawed.

I want to be clear: we know that from the outset this was basically a Liberal government bill. It is roughly the same bill that was placed before the House in 2005 by the Liberals. Back then it was known as Bill S-33. It was slated to go through the Senate before the House of Commons. It was introduced in the Senate by a Liberal senator but subsequently was ruled out of order because it was a money bill. Interestingly enough, it was challenged in the Senate by Conservative senators.

The bill then reappeared magically as Bill C-62 in the fall of 2006 and of course died on the order paper because of an election. Apparently there were forces at work that made this very bad bill disappear.

However, we have it back again. This time it is Bill C-6 and not much has changed from the bad old days of Bills S-33 and C-62. It is still flawed. It is the same old bill with the same problems.

Needless to say, there have been numerous concerns about the way in which governments, both the Liberals and the Conservatives, are dealing with this area of aeronautics policy and safety management.

One of the biggest concerns that we and other Canadians have is about accountability, accountability to Parliament, accountability to the people of Canada, and open and transparent decision making, all the things that the Conservatives said were intrinsic to their mandate and inherent in their philosophy and would be fundamental to the work of the House, the work that they would do here.

Yet here we are again, as we have been on so many other occasions over the last little while, with another example of the Conservatives reneging on accountability and the interests of Canadians because of expediency. On a fundamental issue of accountability and safety and security of the people in the country, the government once again is going the route of expediency rather than route of what is in the best interests of Canadians.

While we have made substantial progress, Bill C-6 emphasizes cutting costs rather than improving safety standards. There can be no compromise on airline safety. Let me repeat: there can be no compromise on the safety of Canadians. These are major policy issues that will have a direct impact on Canadians who travel by air. The financial bottom lines of Air Canada and WestJet unfortunately will be a factor in setting safety levels in this country.

Transport Canada will be relegated to a more distant role as general overseer of safety management systems, or SMS, as we have heard it called. Adequate safety costs money, but SMS will foster a tendency to cut corners in a very competitive aviation market racked by high fuel prices.

That of course will lead to concerns about the profit margin, with a lot of money for fuel and less money for profit. We know that in business profit is paramount. It is called bean-counting. That is where corporations analyze the degree of risk they are willing to take in order to make money. But when it comes to airline security I say that any risk is unacceptable, and I say not in Canada, no bean-counting when it comes to airline security.

In collaboration with stakeholders such as the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, airline inspectors and other representatives from the trade union movement, the NDP transportation critic successfully fought for a number of amendments to Bill C-6 in the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Unfortunately, serious flaws still remain in Bill C-6. The bill will enshrine SMS, which will allow industries to decide, as I said before, the level of risk they are willing to accept in operations rather than abide by the level of safety established by a minister acting in the public interest.

The SMS would let the government transfer increasing responsibility to the industry itself to set and enforce its own safety standards. It is designed in part to help Transport Canada deal with declining resources and high projected levels of inspector retirements. This just cannot happen. The Government of Canada has to be responsible. It cannot relegate and slough off its responsibility to the industry.

While the NDP passed an amendment in transport committee that emphasizes a reduction of risk to the lowest possible level rather than just accepting or tolerating these risks, we are still concerned about the delegation of safety to corporations.

The NDP did manage to improve this legislation somewhat in committee. A new legislative requirement for the minister to maintain a program for oversight and surveillance of aviation safety in order to achieve the highest level of safety was passed. A new legislative obligation for the minister to require the aeronautical activities be performed at all times in a manner that meets the highest safety and security standards was passed. A new legislative requirement for the minister to carry out inspections of operators who use SMS was passed.

The NDP supported a government amendment to give the transport committee the unprecedented ability to review Transport Canada regulations that may have a reported safety concern.

Under pressure from the NDP, the government was compelled to introduce extensive amendments to limit the scope of designated organizations, the bodies that would assume the role of Transport Canada in setting and enforcing rules on airline safety.

An amendment was successfully pushed through to ensure that the Canada Labour Code would prevail over the Aeronautics Act in the event of a possible conflict.

An amendment was added that would ensure employees and their bargaining agents were included in the development and implementation of SMS.

The government was again compelled, after extended debate, to introduce a form of whistleblower protection for employees who report to Transport Canada that their employer is violating the law.

A new definition of safety management system was put into the legislation, emphasizing a reduction of risks to the lowest possible level rather than just accepting or tolerating risks.

We still have a number of concerns with Bill C-6 and the fact that it compromises the safety of Canadians. We believe that the travelling public and aviation workers deserve better.

We are also concerned with issues involving SMS secrecy, weak whistleblower protection and a lack of airline accountability. These compromises are unacceptable. They are unacceptable to the NDP, and I believe they are unacceptable to Canadians.

The airline industry would be permitted to increasingly define the safety levels of its operations. While the scope of designated organizations has been restricted, significant loopholes still remain. Unfortunately, an amendment ensuring these designated organizations respect key laws in their rule making was defeated.

There is no three year review clause for SMS, as is the case for designated organizations.

There is still no real accountability because this legislation seeks to heighten secrecy. It restricts access to information on the safety performance of airlines. Canadians will be left in the dark when it comes to important safety information. Public access under the Access to Information Act, the ATIA, to safety information reports provided to Transport Canada by air operators will be totally unavailable. We have heard about this.

The NDP amendments sought to preserve operations like ATIA in key areas. Unfortunately, these were defeated.

This new hands off enforcement policy by Transport Canada under SMS would mean that there would be no action taken against corporate offenders if there were problems. The government contends that companies will no longer divulge safety problems without this provision. We find this very unconvincing.

We believe there has to be protection. We believe this bill does not afford that protection. We demand that the government and this House consider the safety of Canadians first.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have found out that 80,000 passengers have been put at risk over the past five years when planes have come dangerously close to each other in Canadian skies. These findings are based on Transport Canada data. That includes more than 800 incidents between 2001 and mid-2005 in which planes were getting too close to each other. In some cases, they were seconds away from colliding.

What should happen? We are saying that the Transport Canada guidelines will need to make sure devices are put into the planes to ensure there is a system to make sure the planes do not come close to one another.

Why do I raise this? It is because through access to information my office was able to find out that recently in downtown Toronto at the island airport we had an incident on March 13, 2007, I believe, when a Cessna 150, a training school type of plane, was doing circuits around runway 26. There was a Porter Airlines flight, a Dash 8 400, approaching the runway. The plane doing circuits on runway 26 cut off the Dash 8, overshooting, and the two aircraft came within 400 feet vertically or a half a mile horizontally of each other. That is very close. How did I get that information? I obtained it from access to information.

Under clause 7 of this bill, no one, no member of the public, whether it is a member of Parliament, a journalist or a person concerned about airline safety, would be able to get this kind of information. The Toronto Star did a series not long ago, in September 2006, recording all of the problems that various airlines, the industry and the passengers had. What will happen after Bill C-6 passes is that all of this information will not be allowed to become public.

Where is the accountability when there is no transparency and no openness? What is the government afraid of? Why is the government shutting down the public's right to know about airline safety? If the government is not doing that, then we should cancel clause 7 and get rid of it. The bill is very clear. Clause 7 says that we cannot continue to have this information.

Earlier there was a question about Toronto's downtown airport and Porter Airlines. Parts of Bill C-6 say that it is now going to be up to the industry to decide the level of risk that the industry is willing to accept in its operations, rather than it being done through the level of safety established by a minister acting in the public interest. It allows the government to transfer the responsibility from the minister and from government so that the industry itself would set and enforce its own safety standards.

That is not the way to go. Why?

Let me describe Toronto's island airport for members. The island airport is in downtown Toronto. It has a large number of pilot cautions. I will tell members what they are. It is stated that all arriving and departing aircraft are instructed to avoid flights over the CNE and Ontario Place. The wind turbine at the CNE grounds is listed as a hazard. There are two large chimney stacks that are noted as hazards, the Hearn power generating plant and the incinerator on Leslie Street.

Pilots also are instructed not to fly over surrounding neighbourhoods, including the entire Bathurst Quay, the residential condominiums along Queen's Quay, and the island community. There are close to 20,000 residents in that downtown area. There are high-rises, some of which are 40 to 50 storeys high. Some of them are within a few seconds to a few minutes of the airport.

Pilots are also warned about vessels with 120 foot masts in the vicinity of the final approach to all the runways. There is frequent banner-towing activity over the CNE, which is a hazard. The flagpole in Confederation Park is listed as a hazard. As well, pilots are cautioned that a number of new high-rise buildings have been approved around Fort York. Also, a building on Fleet Street is 44 storeys high, so just along Fleet Street there are at least five to eight new high-rise condominiums that have been approved and are going in.

That area is surrounded by large buildings. Also, because it is right by the lake, people have observed that lake fog in the spring and fall sometimes causes poor visibility at the airport. There is severe weather, such as crosswinds, wind sheer and air turbulence, creating difficult landing conditions. In fact, in just the short while that Porter Airlines has been flying into the island airport, there already has been one incident in which the aircraft could not land at the island airport and was told to go to Pearson International Airport.

The aircraft flying into the island airport, the Q400, is certified to operate in crosswinds of up to 60 kilometres per hour. During February 2006, wind gusts of over 60 kilometres per hour were recorded on 11 different days, so in one month alone there were 11 days when the crosswinds were too strong.

There is also another problem at this airport. The runway is incredibly short. The Q400, when fully loaded, requires 1,402 metres for takeoff and landing, which is almost 200 metres more than the longest runway at the island airport. That is how short the runway is. These are the safety requirements at the downtown Toronto Island Airport. Even Bombardier, which manufactures the Q400, has said that 1,400 metres of runway is required only if one of the two engines fails on takeoff.

There are a lot of problems at the downtown island airport. There is also a problem with the large number of birds in that area. There is a bird sanctuary nearby. Occasionally people have to shoot off some guns in order to scare away the birds. Transport Canada statistics show that the shore birds, and gulls in particular, account for the greatest number of bird strikes and that 80% of bird strikes occur during takeoff and landing. There are all sorts of problems.

Also, the island airport is run by a port authority that this year at the annual general meeting declared a loss of $6 million in a $10 million business. It is quite incredible that our government is continuing to subsidize a money-losing business and that this rogue agency continues to run an airport that is not welcomed by the citizens of Toronto and definitely has a lot of safety problems.

We are seeing a pattern in Bill C-6, which deals with airline safety. We have other bills like this before us, such as Bill C-45, the proposed fisheries act, which basically allows corporate polluters to dump toxic substances without fines. The new act allows the minister discretion to give alternate measures to big polluters instead of criminal records as mandated in the old fisheries act. Environmentalists and people who are concerned about the Great Lakes, for example, are appalled. There is a big campaign against the bill because it is seriously flawed. That is one of the patterns.

Other things are happening. Last week we discovered that at least 90,000 toys in Canada have dangerous levels of lead and again the government is asking the industry to determine what the safety level is, just like it is doing for the airline industry. We are asking companies to detect toxins and lead in toys and asking them--

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested to speak to this bill and I am very pleased to be following my colleague, the Sault Ste. Marie. When we are called upon to look at legislation, we inevitably look at it through the prism of our region and our experience. What I have seen in northern Ontario, which reflects rural regions across Canada, is the general abandonment at the federal level of a vision for transportation in our country. I want to speak to that first because it ties into the bill.

We have three key areas of transportation in northern Ontario. We have rail, we have a very thin ribbon of highway, which masquerades as the Trans-Canada trucking route but often it is two lanes for 18 wheelers on icy roads with rock cuts on either side, and we have a series of airports. A number of years ago two decisions were made. One was at the provincial level and one was at the federal level, which cut loose key airports from the economic life of our communities.

One was a decision by then Premier Mike Harris that we did not need the norOntair air service, which was a vital service linking all the communities in southern Ontario. The private sector could step in. The private sector did not step in and key airports were left without carriers and without service.

At the same time, the federal government was making a decision to walk away from its traditional role of supporting the infrastructure of airports, leaving these airports on their own. In my region, the airport at Earlton has always played an essential role. Also the airport in Kirkland Lake played an essential role in terms of medevac services, connecting the communities in the central Témiscaming region with southern Ontario. The loss of carrier service and the loss of federal support for those airports has seriously challenged economic development. If we are trying to bring new business, new families and entrepreneurs into a region, and the best thing we can offer them is two lanes of highway and icy roads, they are going to think twice.

We have asked again and again where the government plan is to ensure that not every single airport, but key airports in key regions are given some level of support in order to maintain themselves. Clearly the issue of the Earlton airport and the Kirkland Lake airport speaks to a lack of vision in the country and about the need to ensure we have infrastructure to support airline service and airline access in all regions, including our rural regions. The lack of support for Earlton and Kirkland Lake is indicative of a lack of vision for the larger transportation issue.

At the same time, we see in northern airports that Transport Canada and the federal government no longer mandate the same level of emergency services. For example, at the Timmins airport, which is very busy serving the James Bay coast and the De Beers project with numerous flights in and out, there is no longer the obligation to maintain fire services there. Therefore, this is a question of risk management, that we believe the odds are with us and that nothing will go wrong. If something does go wrong, if we do not have fire services at those key airports, the tragedy would be immense.

I want to speak to this bill because the New Democratic Party members have looked carefully at the transportation agenda being brought forward by the government and by the former government. We have a number of concerns that link to the larger issue of the abandonment of the federal responsibility to set a certain level of standard to ensure the transportation links, whether they be rail, road, or by air, are maintained.

We brought forward a number of amendments to Bill C-6 because we found it fundamentally flawed from the get-go. At the end of the day, we still believe those problems remain. As far as we can see from having gone through this legislation, this is about allowing industry to set the level of risk, not government.

That is a fundamental problem for us. Look at the Jetsgo situation. Jetsgo was considered a model. Any upstart airport business is considered a great thing when it happens and we support that, but there were major problems with Jetsgo. I can refer to the Toronto Star investigative report that said when it was offering fares as low as $1, a price was going to be paid and that price was in safety, training and maintaining a level or standard with which all Canadians would feel comfortable.

Canadians assume the federal government is taking that role. However, we saw Transport Canada do very little to address serious issues. In fact, over a two and a half year period it dismissed the troubles being brought forward on safety. It said that it was part of the growing pains of a start-up operation.

It would be quite the growing pain if something did go horribly wrong, and they can go wrong. Given the risks of airlines, being much greater than any other form of transportation, we have to ensure we have the standard in place. This will ensure that either a start-up airline or a long-standing airline has to meet a certain standard of safety.

We believe the issue brought forward in Bill C-6 is that we will let companies set their level of what is acceptable risk, and that is simply not good enough. We are concerned about why the Conservative government would bring this forward right now. There are key areas that the Conservatives campaigned on. One was access to information, which they said would bring accountability. They also talked about whistleblower protection, again for accountability. Then there is the larger issue of simple accountability.

If we look at the bill and the flaws in it, the New Democratic Party's research on the bill has found that instead of allowing for access to information on flight safety, it heightens secrecy. It restricts access to information on the safety performance of airlines. Canadians will be left in the dark when it comes to important safety information. Public access under the Access to Information Act to safety information and reports to Transport Canada by air operators will be totally unavailable.

That is not acceptable, especially for a government whose members, for example on the issue of accountability, are running around saying that they are going to give out every Wheat Board meeting note, yet on the issue of Canadians of being able to ask clearly for the records of what is happening with airline safety, they are not going it to give them that.

On whistleblower protection, we have always thought we would believe it when we saw a government commit to whistleblowers. However, for airline safety, whistleblower protection is vital. We need people to come forward to tell us if there are problems. Otherwise we only will find out the problem after the fact. While some form of whistleblower protection for employees has been introduced, there is no effective redress mechanism for employees who have had reprisals taken against them, other than a warning or a possible fine of the offending employer. We believe there has to be really clear and committed protection so people bring forward problems.

On the overall issue of accountability, we believe the safety management system in place is not acceptable to the larger issue of public safety. We are allowing the airline industry to increasingly define what its comfort level is.

As members of Parliament, we fly a great deal, and I have learned a lot more about flight safety from flying. I fly on the large jets, but I also fly on the little puddle jumpers like the little Bearskin tube planes that fly into Sioux Lookout and Thunder Bay. There are also the little planes that I take to the James Bay coast. Therefore, I have begun to reflect a great deal more about the issue of safety. As travellers and passengers, we always assume safety is the first and foremost requirement. However, when we are dealing with an extremely competitive market, when we are dealing with the extreme high costs and the need to get into markets, any industry is going to be challenged.

The issue of safety perhaps does not become an issue of negligence, but cutting a corner here and a corner there can lead to problems. This is why we need that objective body. We need a really clear presence of Transport Canada acting. In terms of railway safety, it has failed to act. We have seen the incredible number of rail accidents that have taken place in the last three years. Clearly this system is not working. We need greater accountability and a greater sense of protection for the public

That brings me back to the whole Jetsgo issue. We looked through the reports that were done in the media on it. It was very disturbing that a key maintenance document was more than a decade out of date. There were no engineering orders to demonstrate that three safety orders relating to engines had been complied with. There was no evidence that a quality assurance audit, due in the latter half of 2004, was ever completed. The review uncovered a 2004 internal Jetsgo audit that found numerous examples of missing or inappropriate entries on maintenance release forms that allowed the planes to fly in the air.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this very important bill before us. It will have ramifications both in the short term and the long term if we allow it to go through the House today. I think it will put at risk the safety of travellers who fly by air across the country and those flying internationally.

It disturbs me deeply that we are moving with such haste and in a direction that we have seen in other jurisdictions has proven to be not good, and in some instances disastrous.

First of all, I commend and thank my colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, for the very vigilant effort he has put into this and the oversight that he has provided. The contribution that he has made to this committee, as it has struggled with the bill, has been nothing but outstanding and he continues right to the last minute to put on the table all of those concerns that we as an NDP caucus in the House have raised about the bill.

The member speaks very effectively on behalf of many people and particularly those who work in the airline safety industry, groups like the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, airline inspectors, and other representatives from the trade union movement. They know directly. They have to sleep with this every night. We will have to sleep with this as well if their ability to act on behalf of the common good, in the interests of safety for all Canadians, is in any way jeopardized by the interests of the airlines themselves.

We have seen this on a number of occasions in the not too far past. Many of us will remember the demise of an airline company called Jetsgo in this country. After it was grounded it was found that the safety record that it had was pretty alarming. Just by way of some commentary, I wish to quote what was said in a newspaper at that time:

Interviews with former employees, incident reports filed with Transport Canada and the Transportation Safety Board, and internal government documents paint a picture of an airline so badly run that some considered a major accident inevitable.

It went on to say:

The Jetsgo experience underscores some of the major findings that are part of an ongoing investigation into aviation safety by the Toronto Star, Hamilton Spectator and The Record of Waterloo Region. The probe has found a system struggling to keep up with the demands of higher passenger traffic and a disturbing number of mechanical problems.

To simply say that if we pull some of the government oversight out of this and turn it over to the companies themselves that somehow it will correct itself is, I believe, simplistic at its worst.

For the government to be moving down that road and with the support of the Liberals in particular who brought the bill forward in the first place, I think, is quite irresponsible.

We have our own member for Trinity—Spadina raising issues with the minister and the ministry in the context of this bill that speaks to her concern about an airport right in the middle of downtown Toronto. It already presents all kinds of safety and environmental challenges, never mind if that company, as it struggles to find its niche, gets a toehold in the very competitive market of the airline industry, and begins as well to cut corners where safety is concerned in order to be successful and profitable.

It concerns us deeply in this caucus that we would allow ourselves to be manipulated, led and driven in this way by the industry itself knowing what happened in the railway sector where we have done this, where we went down this road. There was very similar legislation in place in terms of safety oversight. Now we see day after day, week after week, railway accidents, some very close to communities. One of these days one of those accidents will be disastrous. If we have an accident in the air it is automatically disastrous by the nature of the way that business happens.

In light of what we know and what we have seen, our past experience, and the road we have gone down with other privatizations of this safety oversight and other privatizations of government operations, why would we continue to support a bill such as the one we have in front of us today?

I mentioned just a few minutes ago about the member for Burnaby—New Westminster who has worked really hard on this bill. In fact, given that it looked like the bill was moving through anyway because the Liberals, the Bloc and the Conservatives have now agreed that they are going to support, it did make some substantial progress.

However, I think our concern, and perhaps that little bit of progress, needs to be put on the record. These are major policy initiatives that would have a direct impact on Canadians who travel by air.

The financial bottom line of Air Canada and WestJet will be a factor in setting safety levels in the sky. Transport Canada will be relegated to a more distant role as a general overseer of this new safety mechanism that we are putting in place, namely, adequate safety costs and money, but the safety management systems, SMS, would foster a tendency to cut corners in a very competitive aviation market racked by high fuel prices. What would happen to safety when the need to make profits and save money becomes paramount, as in fact it already has?

Bill C-6 enshrines safety management systems which would allow industries to decide the level of risk they are willing to accept in their operations rather than abide by the level of safety established by a minister acting in the public interest.

Safety management systems would let the government transfer increasing responsibility to the industry itself to set and enforce its own safety standards. It is designed in part to help Transport Canada deal with declining resources and high projected levels of inspector retirements.

While the NDP passed an amendment at the transport committee that emphasizes a reduction of risks to the lowest possible level, rather than just accepting or tolerating these risks, we are still concerned about the delegation of safety to corporations.

Some of the amendments that we were able to get through committee included: a new legislative requirement for the minister to maintain a program for the oversight and surveillance of aviation safety in order to achieve the highest level of safety, a new legislative obligation for the minister to require that aeronautical activities be performed at all times in a manner that meets the highest safety and security standards, and a new legislative requirement for the minister to carry out inspections of operators who use SMS.

The NDP supported a government amendment to give the transport committee the unprecedented ability to review Transport Canada regulations that may have a reported safety concerns.

Under pressure from the NDP, the government was compelled to introduce extensive amendments to limit the scope of designated organizations, the bodies that would assume the role of Transport Canada in setting and enforcing rules on airline safety.

One such amendment would require proper government inspection of these designated organizations while another would require the minister to approve any rules made by these bodies.

The designated organizations provisions were also delayed three years before taking effect, as well as being subject to annual reporting to Parliament and the review by the transport committee after three years.

An amendment was successfully pushed through to ensure that the Canada Labour Code would prevail over the Aeronautics Act in the event of possible conflict. An amendment was added that would ensure employees and their bargaining agents are included in the development and implementation of SMS.

The government was compelled, after extended debate, to introduce a form of whistleblower protection for employees who report to Transport Canada. A new definition of safety management system was put in the legislation, emphasizing a reduction of risks to the lowest possible level rather than just accepting and tolerating these risks.

We claim, as I wrap up, that without constant and effective public regulation corporations would constantly push the limits of safety operations, at growing risk to the travelling public. This was said by Dave Ritchie, general vice-president of IAMAW.

While the government's intention to download the regulation and monitoring of safety to the private sector is dangerous, we are particularly concerned about the use of SMS in foreign repair stations. If the monitoring of Transport Canada and SMS in Canada is problematic, it is even more unlikely at foreign work sites. So, we continue to be very concerned and will in fact be voting against this legislation when it comes forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today at the report stage of Bill C-6. After first reading and the debate at second reading, the Bloc Québécois was opposed to the bill. We had a lot of concerns about comprehensive safety management systems, which came with no guarantees that the detailed inspections by federal check pilots could continue. At the same time, there were many signs that the number of check pilots would be reduced in the future.

My colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel and I studied the bill carefully. The committee held 11 meetings to hear witnesses from all the stakeholder groups—pilots, federal officials, lobby groups—and six special meetings to examine the bill clause by clause. After studying all the clauses, we wrote a report, which was recently tabled in the House and proposed 20 amendments to the bill.

The Bloc's concerns have to do with the safety management system and the designated organizations, because we did not have a clear idea of what responsibilities they would have in the overall system.

We heard the different parties, including Justice Moshansky, an aviation expert who even conducted an inquiry into a plane crash. He said that the clause on designated organizations should be kept, but with provision for oversight. This is what we did, as it was clear to us that, in light of all the positive comments we had heard, this safety management system could give good results.

However, we made sure government inspections would continue, in particular by means of the Bloc amendment, which stated:

The Minister shall maintain a program for the oversight and surveillance of aviation safety in order to achieve the highest level of safety established by the Minister.

We proposed this amendment, which was included in our committee report, because we wanted to ensure that the inspections that are already part of the air transportation system would continue, despite the more general implementation of safety management systems.

In this way, we made sure that Transport Canada would not just have audits of the systems themselves done and not carry out its own visual and technical inspections of aircraft. By doing this, we are bringing about what the minister and the department were talking about—a dual safety system—and not just replacing inspections with a safety system. Continuing with the inspections and implementing the systems across the board ensures that, as a basic principle, all companies will be governed by a safety management system. We can at least rest assured, thanks to the continuing inspections, that the system itself will improve safety overall within companies.

However, I am particularly disappointed that 16 last-minute amendments are being introduced at this stage. Of these, 10 or 12 have been moved by the NDP. One amendment asks for the elimination of clause 12. We studied designated organizations together at length and now, all of a sudden, we are told that all that will be eliminated, at the last minute, even though these views were not accepted when the bill was studied in committee.

The most surprising is the government's amendment No. 2, which seeks to eliminate everything pertaining to safety systems. The NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals worked together to come up with a good definition, which was not in the legislation. It is a matter of regulations, establishing regulations for safety management systems.

We went to the trouble of spelling out the definition of these systems. Suddenly, at the last minute, just before the vote, the government wants to eliminate this definition—which is very binding for the government, it is true—that allows us to give our full support to this bill.

My colleague read it earlier, but I think it is important to read it again:

(c.1) safety management systems and programs that provide for

(i) the appointment of an executive

(A) responsible for operations and activities authorized under a certificate issued pursuant to a regulation made under this Act, and

(B) accountable for the extent to which the requirements of the applicable safety management system or program have been met,

(ii) the implementation, as a result of any risk management analysis, of the remedial action required to maintain the highest level of safety,

(iii) continuous monitoring and regular assessment of the level of safety achieved, and

(iv) the involvement of employees and their bargaining agents in the development, implementation and ongoing operation of the applicable safety management system or program;

This is a set of obligations for companies and their staff to ensure real involvement in this safety management program.

We also looked at railway safety, where safety management systems were implemented roughly five years ago.

We heard from a number of witnesses during consideration of safety. Most of the witnesses said they had never heard of a safety management system in their company.

With this legislation, we want employees and bargaining agents to be involved and play an active role in the safety management system. We do not just want to have a nice system that comes from management and is in the company's files, but does filter down to the core to ensure full involvement of the entire company.

Today, the government is proposing to eliminate this entire nice definition that we worked on together. It is not very reassuring as far as any wish they might have to implement a good safety management system, which we subscribed to only after examining it and hearing from all the witnesses.

I noticed earlier that the representatives of the official opposition will not support such an amendment. They took part in this, just as we did. We do not want this amendment to be adopted. They put forward three or four other admissible amendments that simply make corrections to the text.

I hope this amendment will not be adopted. I also hope that after the bill has been considered by the other place, there will not be any surprises, like the ones we had with Bill C-11.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the privilege of speaking to Bill C-6, which is clearly a bill that would lead to improved aviation safety in our country.

Once we cut through all the rhetoric we hear in this House, the bill would move us a huge step forward in improving the safety of aviation in Canada. As a member of the transportation committee, I had a chance to hear all the witnesses who appeared before us, and there were many of them. They represented the different aspects of the industry. They represented, of course, Judge Moshansky, who was involved in an earlier inquiry into the Dryden tragedy.

What came out very clearly from all the witnesses, even those who were perhaps opposed to the direction in which this bill was going, was that if we pushed them far enough, the witnesses would admit that safety management systems are a good thing for the aviation industry. SMS, as we call it, clearly improves safety. It is another level of safety that we superimpose upon the already existing regulatory and enforcement framework.

When we were at the committee, the members of the committee know that, as a result of the testimony of the witnesses, we as a government brought forward amendments, as did the other parties, the NDP, the Bloc and the Liberal Party. Quite frankly, I believe we were able to accommodate most of them because all of us had a common goal: to ensure that aviation safety in Canada is improved.

The committee also heard from representatives from the International Civil Aviation Organization. When asked what Canada's record in civil aviation safety was, they said that Canada was the leader in aviation safety. When asked where Canada was in terms of implementing SMS, they said that Canada was the leader in adopting SMS, which is a good thing. It is not a bad thing, as the NDP would have us believe.

We heard a lot of rhetoric in this House several minutes ago about how this legislation was essentially a get out of jail free card, that this legislation was full of holes and that it would actually lead to a reduction of current safety levels. That is not true.

One of the big objections was the suggestion that this bill and the safety management systems were, in effect, self-regulation or deregulation of the industry. In other words, the suggestion was that the government was washing its hands of the whole safety issue when it came to aircraft. However, that is not the case at all.

A number of very good suggestions were made at the committee and we as a government said that they were excellent suggestions. To ensure there was no doubt that we still had a strong regulatory oversight, we agreed to amendments that were brought forward by the other parties and other members of the committee that would ensure there was no step backward, that the existing enforcement mechanisms would still be in place, and that superimposed on that would be the safety management systems that each organization would need to adopt.

The beauty of safety management systems is that we are now empowering companies, airlines, small aircraft operators and their employees to identify safety concerns and report those on a non-punitive basis. That means that if I, as an employee of an airline, find that someone missed a bolt here or someone else did not do the work correctly on the aircraft, I can report that and not worry about being punished for that.

It is quite clear from the evidence that we heard at committee that implementing SMS and engaging the front line workers in the airline and aviation industry will lead to an increase in the number of reports made about safety issues by 400% to 500%. That is excellent news.

The other thing is that the new authority in the Aeronautics Act will not allow the minister to abdicate his oversight responsibility to an industry body. These designated organizations will be allowed to monitor the activity of a specific segment of the industry, but only in those areas that represent a low level risk in relation to aviation safety.

I would like to address a number of the motions that have been brought forward by the NDP. Unfortunately, as usual, NDP members had an opportunity at committee to bring forward amendments. The amendments were defeated, or the NDP members did not think of them. Now after the fact, the bill is back before the House and they want to bring these same motions forward again.

There is a process in place. If a specific issue has not been addressed when the bill is at committee, surely this is not the place to bring it up, unless it is of critical importance. Quite frankly, all the critical issues were dealt with at committee. We came to a consensus with all of the opposition parties, notwithstanding that the NDP in the end opposed it.

For example, the first motion brought forward by the NDP has the effect of limiting the definition of a violation to mean only a contravention of the act or of an instrument, and would therefore create a void since it would exclude a security measure and an emergency direction. More important, the impact of the motion would be to remove the minister's ability to issue an administrative monetary penalty for contravention of a security measure or emergency direction. That is why we do not support this motion.

There is another motion which eliminates the regulatory authority of the Minister of Transport to require designated organizations to carry insurance. During committee discussions this motion was presented, but it was not approved. All concerns in regard to designated organizations were adequately addressed. Where? At the committee. They are found in the reprinted version of the bill.

Furthermore, there was also an amendment that the committee would review designated organizations in three years. We are going to live up to that commitment. That is good. That is healthy for aviation safety.

A third motion, again that we as the government oppose, came from the NDP and it deletes the substance of Bill C-6. It is trying to essentially remove clause 12 which contains important amendments that introduce the concept of designated organizations, in other words, organizations that industry can work through to ensure that safety measures are being implemented throughout the industry.

This clause also deals with expanding the enabling authority for management systems. Everyone, including international bodies such as the International Civil Aviation Organization, have determined that these amendments are an important step in advancing safety.

Canada has been called a leader, as I mentioned earlier. To carry this motion would be a cause for embarrassment with countries that are following our lead. Our lead is one that leads to greater, not less, aviation safety within our country.

There is a fourth motion the NDP brought forward which again we oppose. It is similar to the previous one. It is deleting all sections that deal with designated organizations. We had a good debate at committee. The majority on the committee agreed that designated organizations were a huge step forward in adding another level of accountability, responsibility and monitoring.

There is a fifth motion, which again we oppose, which imposes new compliance tools. The amendments contained in this motion are also meant to make the administrative compliance activities more consistent with other transportation acts, such as the Canada Shipping Act. This clause addresses how the minister will handle notices of violation, assurances of compliance and monetary penalties. It does not make any sense to remove this clause from the body of the bill. We would be gutting it. We would be taking away some of the essential elements of implementing safety management systems in Canada.

There are other motions. For example, there is a motion that would remove all protection from access to information sought in the bill. Canadians would like to see accountability in government. They want access to information that is important.

What our bill does is it strikes a great balance between confidentiality where employees are concerned, to make sure that they are willing to report safety problems and that they are not afraid. Otherwise we will find cover-ups. As I mentioned earlier, we expect that this legislation is going to increase the reporting by 400% to 500%. That is great news.

All members of this House should be supporting this bill and opposing the motions put forward by the NDP.

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I was not clear. Our caucus will vote in favour of the bill, but against the amendment introduced by the government that would reduce the level of safety. We will also vote against the amendments introduced by the NDP, because they still do not see that the safety management system is an extra layer.

We are satisfied with the bill, as amended by the Bloc Québécois and other parties and passed by the majority—the NDP voted against it. We want to maintain an adequate inspection system, which has been Canada's strength, and to add an extra layer of safety in order to force companies to have an internal management system to facilitate the work of inspectors.

This is what we want to do and it is what we will do, so the government's amendment will have to be defeated. Once again, the purpose of this amendment, Motion No. 2, is to allow Transport Canada to abolish its inspection system and replace it with the safety management system. The Conservative members did not understand this. They once again listened to Transport Canada. Transport Canada's desire was expressed in 2006 by Merlin Preusse, Director General of Civil Aviation, when he told his employees that they would see their services decrease by about 50% by 2010.

This is not what we want. We want an inspection and monitoring system like the existing one, which would enable someone to arrive unannounced at any airline to ensure that everything is in order—the aircraft, the pilots and the mechanics—and that everyone working there has the necessary training. This is what we want, and it is what we thought we had before the government introduced Motion No. 2, which we will make sure we defeat in this House.

There are also the NDP amendments to consider. I can definitely try to convince my hon. colleague that what Bill C-6 really proposes is an additional layer of safety. That is where I stand, but the NDP are not there yet. Perhaps by rereading it, trying to analyze it and talking to us, they will come to understand it some day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois on the subject of Bill C-6, which amends the Aeronautics Act and makes consequential amendments to other acts. It is a pleasure because our party, the Bloc Québécois, opposed the first version of the bill tabled here in the House.

We opposed the bill because of the actual wording in the bill. Statements made by senior Transport Canada officials suggested that the intent of Bill C-6, with respect to safety management systems, was to replace Transport Canada's inspection service. The inspection service consists of a mechanic-inspector, a mechanic-engineer-inspector and check pilots, that is, over 800 people who can, at any time, intervene without giving prior notice to any company, to check the condition of the aircraft and to ensure that the pilots are qualified for that type of aircraft. Thus, it was a genuine inspection system. Thanks to that inspection system, in recent years, Canada has been one of the top countries in aviation safety.

We wanted to ensure that this system was protected. There were statements from Transport Canada, including from Merlin Preuss, the director general of civil aviation. He told his own employees that down the road, Transport Canada's inspection service would be replaced by the safety management system. He also said that the number of inspectors would be cut by half around 2010.

Transport Canada was already planning to replace the inspection system that was so successful and still is. Furthermore, the inspection service was not enhanced even though there are more planes, the industry is doing well and there are more airports accommodating the planes. Nothing was done to increase the number of people working for the inspection service. Obviously, we were concerned about that.

In committee, we heard witnesses and we were finally able to make some changes. We were hearing two different things. Transport Canada told us that this service would be added to the inspection service, but this is not what we were hearing from those in the field. Earlier, I heard a Conservative member ask a question about the pilots. The Canadian Air Line Pilots Association came to tell us in committee that the inspection service should be changed and that the inspectors should probably do something other than monitor the pilots.

I could understand that the pilots did not always like being subject to some sort of inspection of their work, without notice. They were not too happy about it, but it is something they are going to have to live with. When we have a safety system, we are not there to avoid frustrating air line pilots or anyone else. We are there to have a pre-established system. The Bloc Québécois' goal always was to ensure that the inspection system, which has made Canada famous, is maintained.

In the course of the discussions, work and witness appearances, the government decided to take this line. Thus, changes were made to Bill C-6 that will guarantee some things. Personally, before the changes and the amendment put forward by the government, I could say to my colleagues in my party that we can indeed change people's minds because the government did decide to maintain the inspection system and the safety management system, as recommended by ICAO.

The International Civil Aviation Organization representative told us that all over the world, countries are implementing safety management systems that have to be added on to their inspection systems. We were on our way to having a bill that recognized the desire to maintain inspection services when we found out a few days ago that the government wants to get rid of clause 8, which it had agreed to in committee. Clause 8 is the very definition of a safety management system.

We should take the time to read clause 8, because it provides definitions of the safety management system.

(c.1) safety management systems and programs that provide for

(i) the appointment of an executive—

(ii) the implementation, as a result of any risk management analysis, of the remedial action required to maintain the highest level of safety,

(iii) continuous monitoring and regular assessment of the level of safety achieved, and

(iv) the involvement of employees and their bargaining agents in the development, implementation and ongoing operation of the applicable safety management system or program;

All of the parties discussed this and negotiated a definition. They wanted to ensure that all airlines understand what a safety management system is. Furthermore, they wanted to make them understand that they will have to have, among other things,

(iii) continuous monitoring and regular assessment of the level of safety achieved.

Transport Canada's inspection service can ensure that the safety management system functions as an added layer of safety. It must be maintained. Ongoing monitoring will facilitate the inspectors' work. That way, we can guarantee that all airlines will offer improved safety to Quebeckers and Canadians.

Today, the government wants to remove clause 8 and replace it with clause 5.39, which states:

5.39 The Governor in Council may make regulations respecting

(a) the establishment and implementation of management systems by holders of Canadian aviation documents to provide for the safety of aeronautical activities and compliance with this Part

(b) the designation by a holder...of an individual—

Clause 8 named the person responsible and listed all the obligations to be met by the airlines. It will be replaced by a paragraph that says that all the airlines have to do is to name the person responsible. It is difficult to understand.

Today, I have a better understanding of why the government was in a hurry to adopt Bill C-6: it decided to make itself look good in committee and then to return to the House to propose amendments that will change the meaning of what was discussed.

That will change the whole meaning of the discussions and Transport Canada will have won. The pilots who were not happy about having check pilots to oversee their work will have won. The airlines that were not happy about having inspection and monitoring systems will have won.

As I said, the inspection system allows for an inspection to be carried out without warning. The Bloc was concerned because for business reasons, many airlines are established and fail practically in the same year. We are committed to ensuring that our citizens are safe.

When we explained to ICAO what Transport Canada was trying to do, it did not understand. It believes that an inspection system must be kept. Today, all that could be set aside. I understand that the government is in a hurry to finish up with Bill C-6. However, there is a problem.

I feel that this motion sets aside the entire aspect of inspection. Thus, Transport Canada could go ahead with its initial plan, which was to reduce the number of inspectors, check pilots, mechanic-inspectors and engineer-inspectors by replacing them with just a safety management system. That worries me.

The Bloc Québécois will vote against the motion in amendment tabled by the government. There are also the motions tabled by the New Democratic Party. I think that the NDP members must talk to one another. Initially, the Bloc was opposed to the entire safety management system because we believed that it would take the place of an inspection and monitoring system. We want to ensure that the inspection and monitoring system is kept.

If the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc defeat the government amendment, the opposition will have knocked some sense into the Conservatives. We will force Transport Canada to keep the inspection and monitoring system, as recommended by ICAO.

And we will have been the responsible ones. The Conservatives decided not to be responsible. That is their problem and, besides, it is typical of them. The Conservatives are closer to companies that do not want to be monitored and inspected. It costs money to always be on the lookout and ready to receive inspectors at any time. But that is what is needed. That is what our constituents want. Quebeckers want to be assured that, when they get on a plane, the airlines have made every effort to offer better safety.

This will be guaranteed by voting against the government motion, thereby ensuring that the current inspection system is maintained, and forcing businesses to conduct better analyses and to consider everything that is important. Thus, Transport Canada's inspection service will be more effective.

The inspection may not take as long, because businesses will have upgraded everything to ensure that the aircraft are in good condition and that the pilots have received proper training. Furthermore, these inspectors could fly with the pilot to ensure that he or she is properly qualified and that the aircraft is in good shape.

This is what we want to ensure and what we will do. As for the NDP motions, they demonstrate that the NDP is not quite there yet. We are convinced that the safety management system adds yet another layer to the safety net. I can assure this House that the government's amendment, Motion No. 2, which amends the very foundation of the definition of the safety management system, will be defeated in order to ensure that Quebeckers and Canadians can fly safely.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a two part answer for a two part question. First, I do agree that some of those motions, such as Motions Nos. 6, 7 and 8 on the government side and Motion No. 16, are really technical amendments. They use language with which I think everybody agrees. They try to clean up the language that we agreed in committee needed to be cleaned up but they are not germane to the actual bill itself.

I would never support Motion No. 2 from the government side because, as I said, that guts an essential element of compromise that was reached among all committee members. I say that because it is important for all of those who are following the debate to understand that if one is to answer the question of the member opposite about the acceptability of what the committee was doing for those who are actually engaged in the industry then the answer has to be yes.

Those people, the pilots especially, could only support the legislation if in fact the committee had listened to all of the interventions by interested parties, by expert witnesses and by those who are experts on oversight, and then acted accordingly.

I think the committee acted accordingly in the main. What happened, of course, is that the committee amended the legislation to reflect the concerns of all of the interested people and all of those who are experts in the area of aviation safety and in the area of safety management systems and their outcomes. I would be surprised if the amended Bill C-6 would not receive the support of the aviation industry and the pilots' association.

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

Mr. Speaker, I made an intervention a few moments ago about where the government members were to speak on these amendments. I am still left with the question, and I guess anyone who is watching this debate is wondering, whether the government is interested in getting the bill through the House.

What did the government do? It has presented an amendment, which I would have expected the government would try to defend. If I read the mood of some of my colleagues, it has no chance of passing. In Motion No. 2 the government tries to delete clause 8, lines 1 to 25. There is no chance of that happening, none whatsoever. Therefore, I have to ask myself whether the government is interested in getting the rest of the bill through.

The committee worked for four full months on the bill. I reject, outright, the rhetoric of the member from the NDP, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, who suggests that people have a desire to wreck the system instead of improving it. As a member of the committee, we worked for four diligent months on improving a bill to ensure the safety of Canadians, who trust the aviation industry to get from point A to point B. While we were trying to improve the bill, he has suggested we were trying to do something negative. It is absolutely insane that someone would do that. It is absolutely irresponsible, hypocritical at the very least.

I will tell the House why. The NDP presented a series of motions. The fourth one says that the bill be amended by deleting clause 12. Clause 12 is the heart of the entire bill. Judge Moshansky, to whom the member referred, said that we could keep this bill and we could make improvements if we wanted, but if we touched clause 12, then it would be all for nothing.

The committee members heard him and went through a series of debates. Colleagues from three parties, except the NDP, looked for ways to ensure that clause 12 could be improved. We looked for ways to ensure that accountability practices and transparency would be available throughout the bill. Yet today the NDP members come forward with a decision to gut clause 12. In addition, they put a series of other motions to delete other measures that would improve the bill. Then, with the greatest of chutzpah, they say that another party, which refused to stand up in its own defence, is interested in gutting the bill. They even get it done up in one of the papers in southern Ontario. There was obviously a lot of research done, but I cannot believe it. The government members are sitting there saying that it is okay, that they will vote on this and something will happen.

Those of us who had a desire to make improvements to a bill, which looked for amelioration of conditions for travellers in aviation in Canada, an industry that is growing by leaps and bounds, we are absolutely outraged that the NDP members would have proposed their amendments and that the government would have suggested that we remove clause 8, after we had debated this in committee at great length.

I think my colleagues on this side of the House are probably going to feel the same sense of outrage. We could not have worked this closely for that long and that precisely to have the government then come back and say that it does not matter that we did all of that, that the committee approved all of this and that it wants to take it out.

Why? It is nonsensical. The clause the government wants to amend is reflected again in subsection 5.9(3), which reinforces a ruling oversight, a structure that says as we receive information on an SMS system, we will put the system in a position to safeguard those people and the system itself against frivolous actions or legal actions.

One could say the bill is designed to ensure that information comes forward freely. It is the ultimate whistleblower legislation. Those who bring forward information they might not otherwise bring forward will not be penalized for looking out for the greater interest of the public. The greater interest of the public is what the SMS system is supposed to address. Judge Moshansky has said that we could avoid a lot of things as people come forward with more information about how to improve the system, but we have to give people an incentive and protection when they come forward with that information.

We put that in subsection 5.9(3) and in section 4.9. The government is now going to pull it out of section 4.9. Why? Where is the sincerity in wanting to make the parliamentary system work and the safety management system that the government wants to put in place?

When we were sitting on the government side and presented legislation to initiate this process, we were open enough to recognize that there would be other views and that those views would come before the House and committee. That bill did not survive the election of 2006, but it did come back in three different formats. This is one of those. To try to link this legislation with rail safety, which the committee also dealt with, is doing a disservice to the integrity of members of Parliament who want to improve aviation safety.

Most of us are getting on in years. I have some grandkids, Isabella, Gianluca, Alessandro, Stefano, Tazio and Amedeo, and I know they are watching this. I know in a few years they will ask if those members of Parliament, who were with their granddad, were looking out for their interests when they travelled. We see the famous commercials about dad not drinking and driving, and we see the little child on the poster tugging at our heartstrings.

Now the member from Burnaby is saying that the rest of us are being irresponsible for wanting to do something with this legislation. I am offended because the government introduced a motion to gut an important element of the bill after agreeing to it in committee. The only member who voted against the amended legislation was the NDP member from Burnaby. The Conservatives voted with all other members. Now the government comes before the House and wants to gut one of the most essential elements in the legislation. That is insane. This is the story of the kettle and the pot. I do not know how NDP members can look at themselves in the mirror in the morning. They introduced a series of 12 motions.

The bill, as amended, would improve a structure and would build an architecture for safety management systems in the aviation industry. Those who came before committee said that if we did these things, they would support the bill. Now the NDP members are now saying that those of us who spent four months trying to improve the bill are being nefarious in our intent because we are trying to produce something that, as one of the members already said, set the fox among the chickens. That is absolutely outrageous.

All colleagues should vote against the government motion and against all the NDP motions so we can get on with a serious discussion about amended Bill C-6. It is designed to do something in the interests of Canadians, not serve the political partisan interests of those who engage in rhetoric for the purpose of, I guess, filling in some time on a Tuesday morning.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it will at all. The spirit of the amendment is to allow everyone involved in industry to learn from the reports of other people. Having that ability will create a database and a collective ability to address issues before they arise. If one organization or provider finds a problem, everybody in the industry will be aware of it in a matter of time and will be able to take corrective actions.

I believe, as we move down this road, that Bill C-6 will make the aviation industry in Canada far safer than it has been. As we look over the history of the aviation industry as it grew from the early days until now, a lot has been done to improve it. Canada has one of the safest systems in place and it will continue to be that with this bill when it is enacted.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively. It is good to finally have a Conservative stand up. Of course, the member did not speak to any of the issues of diminishing safety, and he did not address any of the concerns raised by Justice Moshansky or the many witnesses who came before the committee and raised serious concerns about the direction the government is headed in.

He did not even address the government amendment that essentially guts any oversight of having a responsible executive that has to look to the implementation and has to ensure there is remedial action required to maintain the highest level of safety. He did not talk about why the government essentially is trying to move to gut what safety provisions were in this bill.

He did not in any way address why the government is moving ahead with the issue of diminishing airline safety when we have seen what happened with the railways. That is where the government has been completely incomprehensible about this. We saw what happened with railways. In fact, Transport Canada said it had to make changes because when railways violate with impunity the whole issue of safety, as they have, what we see now is the government having to take the railways to court in order to get action to protect the lives of Canadians.

Now we have the same sort of reckless and irresponsible behaviour taking place with the government proposing Bill C-6 and then trying to gut the few components within the bill that actually protect Canadian safety.

I am going to give the member a chance to actually address the issue. I will give him a chance to try to justify why the Conservatives--

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to stand and speak to this as a member of the government. The member who spoke previously said we would be embarrassed to stand and support what we are doing on this bill. I have done it previously on comments directed to the aspects of this bill that deal with national defence and the safety and aeronautics aspects.

It is a pleasure to rise and offer some comments today on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.

Bill C-6 is an act to amend the Aeronautics Act. The Aeronautics Act establishes the Minister of Transport's responsibility for the development and regulation of aeronautics and the supervision of all matters connected with civil aeronautics, as well as the responsibility of the Minister of National Defence for military aeronautical activities.

First and foremost, the intent of Bill C-6 is to provide for a modern and flexible legislative framework to further enhance aviation safety and to reflect the needs of the aviation community. The bill will update the act to make it more consistent with other transportation acts.

The standing committee began studying the bill in February and has heard testimony from dozens of witnesses, all of whom have a sincere interest in the safety of Canadians and Canada's aviation industry. I would like to touch briefly on a few of the major issues that were discussed during the study.

One of the amendments agreed to at committee includes a progressive enforcement program, which includes assurances of compliance and notices of violations without penalty. Transport Canada can and will continue to take enforcement action when necessary and audits can still be conducted if required.

With respect to resources, the number one priority within the department has and will continue to be providing effective safety oversight of the industry by allocating resources to those activities that will provide the greatest safety benefit.

It was also made clear at committee that the concept of designated organizations is being considered only for segments of the industry that do not carry fare-paying passengers or are considered to represent a low level of risk in relation to aviation safety. This was covered in an amendment to the original proposal.

Reporting systems were also discussed at length. To encourage voluntary reporting of safety related information, amendments to the act propose a universal, non-punitive, voluntary reporting program, as well as protections for information that may be obtained by Transport Canada when assessing or auditing the internal reporting system of a certificate holder. Data, once de-identified, is available to all for more analysis and distribution.

However, it is important to note that protections will never prevent enforcement action for deliberate and wilful commission of violations for which Transport Canada would have obtained evidence through its own investigations.

Whistleblower protection also formed an important part of this discussion. The amendments put forward are in the spirit of this type of protection, while at the same time holding true to the intent of encouraging the cooperation of employers and employees to proactively work together for safety.

I now would like to take a moment to address the five government motions that we have put forth in order to align Bill C-6. The amendments are all very technical in nature.

First, during committee deliberations, an amendment was introduced to clause 8 to establish a new rule-making authority for safety management systems. However, upon further review, we see that this same authority is already provided for in section 5.39. Therefore, it will create a redundancy in respect to the enabling authority to make regulations regarding safety management systems.

The paragraphs in section 5.39 are much broader and are consistent with the definition of management systems adopted by the committee in the definitions section of the act. It is more logical to keep the enabling authority under section 5.39 because this provision is followed by a series of other provisions dealing specifically with management systems.

Second, there are three motions at clause 12, all of which are editorial in nature and meant to correct inconsistencies between the French and the English. These changes are meant to ensure that both versions have the same meaning and, therefore, equal weight. The purpose of these motions remains consistent with the deliberations at committee.

Our final motion affects clause 49. The intent is much clearer than the proposed NDP motion for this clause and it still meets the intent of the committee, which is to delay by three years the implementation of designated organizations. This motion will also serve to correct the versions of both languages since as presented they do not have the same meaning.

In conclusion, Canada has one of the safest aviation systems in the world. This bill will go a long way toward ensuring that the required tools are in place to maintain and enhance the safety of Canadian aviation systems for the future.

Through due diligence, hard work and cooperation, Bill C-6 is now better than it was when originally introduced to Parliament last year. I want to thank committee members who gave their input and support to this bill. The standing committee has indicated support of Bill C-6 with the recommended amendments.

I would therefore encourage members of Parliament to adopt the motions and recommend the amended bill for third reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to reserve my own substantive discussion for my own 10 minutes.

This is not really a question. It is more a comment than anything else. I know that the member has allowed himself to be transported by his desire to be very partisan on this. He has made some suggestions and allegations about the continuity of a government position that goes back to the time when I was in government, so I feel duty-bound to defend those aspects of this discussion that refer back to my colleagues in government, who of course cannot be captured by the member's desire to paint all members of government as those who are deliberately out there to do damage to the Canadian public.

Because I am standing up in defence of a government that was trying to be progressive and that was making every effort to ensure that the quality of life and the standard of living in the country were constantly improved, I ask myself where the government members who were concerned with Bill C-6 are on this particular amendment, because the amendment is being spoken to and defended by somebody who has voted against the bill. It is not really a question the hon. member can answer.

I am just asking myself if I am going to be debating something that is important for Canadians, both in quality of life and standard of living, because the hon. member has scared off all government comment on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your ruling. However, I think it is fair to say it is difficult at report stage to debate what are essentially contradictory amendments. We have a series of amendments from the NDP where we attempt to address some of the egregious mistakes made in Bill C-6, either intentional or otherwise, that diminish air safety in our country. There is also an amendment from the government that essentially guts whatever good work the transport committee was able to do. Essentially we are debating two different series of amendments, a series from the NDP which attempts to save Canadian lives, and a series from the Conservative government which will diminish our safety even further.

It makes no sense what the government is proposing as amendments today, particularly in light of what we have seen with rail safety over the last few years. The railway companies were basically given responsibility to manage their own safety systems. The former Liberal government basically got out of the safety business.

What do we have today? We have an epidemic of derailments across the country. Many communities have been impacted, particularly in British Columbia because some companies, having been given that responsibility to manage their own safety without oversight, have been irresponsible. Lives have been lost. There has been environmental devastation.

Instead of learning from that experience of the erosion of safety that took place under the Liberals in railway transport, the Conservative government is trying to do the same thing with the airline industry. What is wrong with this picture? At a time when Canadians are increasingly concerned about derailments in the railway system, the Conservatives are moving forward to do the same irresponsible things to our airline industry. Nothing embodies that recklessness, that irresponsibility of the Conservative government more than the amendments the government is bringing forward.

Let us see what the Conservatives are trying to strike from the record. I am sure Canadians who are watching the parliamentary deliberations today will be very interested in learning what the Conservatives want to take out of Bill C-6. It is already a bad bill for a number of reasons. It is a bad bill because it gives a get out of jail free card to companies that violate with impunity safety in maintenance and safety generally. An airline company that does that, as long as it follows some sort of internal process, will get a get out of jail free card. Airline companies can be irresponsible. They can even cost lives. However, if they have set up some sort of internal mechanism and they say that they are following the dictates of that internal mechanism, they get a get out of jail free card. The CEOs can be as irresponsible as they want and the government is giving them a get out of jail free card.

Also, the government is not providing any sort of whistleblower protection in any real form. We were able to get some amendments in committee but it does not in any way protect a whistleblower who has raised real concerns about company irresponsibility.

In addition to all that, the Conservative government is moving forward and rather than having just two exemptions to the Access to Information Act, we will now be looking at nine areas that are cut off forever from access to information. The Canadian public will never find out what companies are being irresponsible and what companies are putting Canadians' loved ones in danger.

These government amendments that are coming forward today take out the safety management systems that any internal programs that companies set up have to have a responsible executive. The government is taking that out. There will not be a responsible executive for whatever purported safety mechanism that is set up.

The government wants to remove the appointment of an executive who has to be responsible for operations and activities authorized under a certificate issued pursuant to a regulation made under the act and accountable for the extent to which the requirements of the applicable safety management systems have been met. The government wants to take away the requirement of putting in place remedial action required to maintain the highest level of safety.

Canadians are finding out that the government presented a bad bill. The government wants to repeat the same errors we have seen occur with our railway system, the derailments, environmental devastation and death. Seeing what the Liberals did there, the Conservatives have decided to do the same thing with the airline industry. They are taking out the reference to the implementation of remedial action required to maintain the highest level of safety.

If we could have a clear picture from Conservative members, if they walked around with a sign on their foreheads, it would say “We want to make sure that we don't maintain the highest level of safety”. That is what the Conservative members are attempting to do with this bill. By bringing forward these amendments, they are gutting a section that requires a responsible executive of the company, to which they are turning over safety management, to put in place remedial action required to maintain the highest level of safety. The Conservatives are saying they do not want the highest level of safety maintained.

What else are the Conservatives taking out? They are taking out responsibility for continuous monitoring and regular assessment of the level of safety achieved. They are taking that out. What could be a clearer notice of intent of where the Conservatives want to go with this?

For those Canadians, quite rightfully, particularly in British Columbia, who are concerned about what they have seen in the railway system, now the Conservatives are doing the same thing with the airline system. They are taking out references to continuous monitoring and taking out the requirement for remedial action to maintain the highest level of safety.

Finally, the government amendment is also taking out the involvement of employees in the development, implementation and ongoing operation of the applicable safety management system. The transport committee heard testimony which was conclusive, clear and constant that for any safety management system to work, the employees have to be involved.

Reference to a responsible executive is being taken out. Implementation of a remedial action required to maintain the highest level of safety is being taken out. Continuous monitoring and regular assessment of the level of safety achieved is being taken out. The involvement of employees and their bargaining agents in the development, implementation and ongoing operation of the applicable safety management system is being taken out. Let us gut whatever minor protection existed in the bill. Let us just go to the wild, wild west of air safety.

We heard testimony from witnesses saying that this was exactly the wrong way to go. The Conservatives are saying, “No, that is fine. We do not care about Canadians' safety. We do not care about ensuring that there are high standards. We do not care about all of that”. What the Conservatives want to do is just get out of the safety business, just turn it over to the companies and in addition, if they break the law, there will be not be any punishment or consequences. As long as a company is incorporated, it would seem to be able to do anything in Conservative land. For individuals, the full breadth of the law will be brought down on their heads, but as long as a company is incorporated and has wealthy corporate lawyers protecting it, it can do anything it wants in this new, strange, bizarre world that the Conservatives seem to want to bring forward.

The Conservative amendment is absolutely outrageous. It is gutting what components might have existed in Bill C-6 which is already a pretty reckless and irresponsible piece of legislation. Now the Conservatives have brought forward an amendment to gut what provisions may have existed to actually require companies to maintain a high level of safety, to take remedial action when there were problems, to ensure that employees were involved, employees who are at the front line.

If anything was revealed by that terrific series on air safety done by The Hamilton Spectator journalists who basically went in and saw the various levels of safety violations that occur even now with Transport Canada oversight within the Canadian aviation system, it was the importance of having employees involved. Now we have a so-called safety system, we call it self-serve safety, where corporate CEOs can take whatever they want and leave whatever they want behind.

By gutting these amendments that were put in place by the transport committee, essentially to assure at least some measure of safety, what the government is doing is revealing its agenda, and that agenda is not to protect the loved ones of Canadians. The agenda is not to increase the confidence that Canadians may have in the airline system after what we saw happening to the railway system. No, the agenda seems to be purely ideological: to simply gut those safety systems and hand them over to the companies and see if it all works out.

We oppose that. We oppose this amendment. We had hoped to have discussion on the NDP amendment separately from these irresponsible government amendments.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

There are 16 motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-6.

Motions Nos. 1, 3 and 13 will not be selected by the Chair as they could have been presented in committee.

All remaining motions have been examined and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

Motions Nos. 2, 4 to 12 and 14 to 16 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 2, 4 through 12 and 14 through 16 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Toronto Island Airport

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce three petitions. The first one is very timely, as we are about to debate the Aeronautics Act, Bill C-6.

The petitioners state that the Toronto Island Airport is heavily subsidized by taxpayers and has been losing money every year for the last 15 years. They note that the Toronto Port Authority lost $6 million this year in a $10 million business, that operating an airport is contrary to the vision of a clean, green and vibrant waterfront, and that the Toronto Port Authority is an unaccountable and rogue agency that was created against the wishes of Torontonians.

Therefore, the petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to first, abolish the Toronto Port Authority; second, close the Island Airport; and third, return the waterfront to the people of Toronto.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to address that in the affirmative in a moment but there is more that we should know about in terms of the business we are doing.

We will continue today with Bill C-42, the quarantine act, Bill C-58, the railway transportation bill and Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (non-registration of firearms that are neither prohibited nor restricted).

Tonight we have the emergency debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 that the Speaker has determined should proceed.

On Friday we will call Bill C-33, the income tax bill and Bill C-6, the aeronautics bill.

Next week is got the job done week when the House has completed the nation's business for this spring's session. During the got the job done week we will continue and hopefully complete the business from this week, as well as some new legislation and legislation that will be out of committee or the Senate.

The list of bills that are currently on the order paper, in addition to those I have identified for this week that I would like to see completed by the House before the summer recess are: Senate amendments to Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act.

There are also the following bills: Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts; Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and Bill C-53, An Act to implement the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention).

Another bill includes Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans).

By the end of next week, Canadians expect that the Senate will have completed its consideration of budget Bill C-52 without any amendments so that they can relax for the summer with the knowledge that $4.3 billion in the 2006-07 year end measures will be in play.

If there are amendments, we will have to be here in the House to respond and protect measures that might otherwise be lost, such as a $1.5 billion for the Canada ecotrust for clean air and climate change; $600 million for patient wait times guarantees; $400 million for the Canada infoway; $100 million for the CANARIE project to maintain the research broadband network linking Canadian universities and research hospitals; $200 million for protection of endangered spaces; and much more.

Canada Transportation Act

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

I thank my colleague for encouraging me. I would certainly take more time if I were to have the unanimous consent of the House. I could speak all day on this issue.

As members will recall, last night we were talking about the fact that with the Conservatives and transportation policy it seems to be consistently one step forward and two steps back. Essentially what we have had in this Parliament is the government putting forward pieces of legislation that either make very modest improvements to the transportation system and access to it, or actually gut the principles of safety and access to our transportation system.

I cited Bill C-6, where essentially we have the government turning over safety management to the airline companies themselves, some of which will handle that very responsibly and others that clearly will not.

When we come back to the issue of Bill C-11, we are seeing the same type of very lukewarm progress. It is fair to say that Bill C-11 purported to bring forward improvements to access transportation for shippers, to provide some improvements around clarity of airfares, and as well to make some significant progress on the issue of railway noise, which is something that afflicts many communities, mine included.

I spoke about the testimony we heard at the transport committee, particularly from two individuals, Mayor Wayne Wright of the city of New Westminster, and Brian Allen from the Westminster Quay, who is involved in the residents association there, who very clearly said that what we need to do is make substantial improvements so that communities have tools to deal with the issue of railway noise.

The Senate amendments before us water down the progress that was made in committee through NDP amendments and amendments from other parties to actually bolster Bill C-11. Bill C-11 was weak and insipid to begin with. Through the transport committee process, we were able to make some notable improvements. I am very sad to see now that the Senate, the other chamber, is watering down the progress that was made. It is very clear to me that the NDP members in this corner of the House cannot support that watering down of progress that, although laudable, one might say was insufficient.

I would like to deal with these two issues of railway noise and clarity around airline advertising affairs, because those are the two key amendments that the Senate has watered down. In clause 27 there is an obligation of the Canadian Transportation Agency to make regulations requiring that the airlines include in the price all costs of providing the service. That is what the NDP and other parties working together were able to improve in Bill C-11. That was the bill that went to the Senate.

This is no small issue. This is an issue that Canadians who travel are intensely concerned with. I travel very frequently, twice a week, from Burnaby—New Westminster to Ottawa and back. I most often travel in economy class and talk with people about how they view the airlines and air travel in Canada.

Many Canadian consumers are concerned about the fact that when they see an advertised fare there are a lot of hidden charges. Most notably, Air Canada has attached a whole range of charges. Now we have to pay for meals and pillows. When we boarded the plane the other day, one person jokingly said that soon we are going to have to bring our own chairs to sit on in the plane.

What we have seen is a progression of user fees that Air Canada and other airlines have brought in to increase the price of the ticket. Because of all the hidden fees, what we are seeing is a huge discrepancy between what the advertised fare is and what consumers are actually paying. That is why consumer groups have been standing up for clarity on the advertising of airline fees.

Members of the Travellers' Protection Initiative appeared before the transport committee. They were very clear. The initiative, as far as the lead organizations are concerned, is composed of the Travel Industry Council of Ontario, the Association of Canadian Travel Agencies, and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

There is also Option consommateurs, a very well-respected organization in Quebec.

This protection initiative was supported by members of the Canadian Association of Airline Passengers, the Consumers' Association of Canada from Saskatchewan, Transport 2000, the Consumers Council of Canada, the Air Passengers Safety Group, the Manitoba Society of Seniors, the Ontario Society (Coalition) of Senior Citizens' Organizations, and Rural Dignity of Canada.

These are all very reputable groups. They were calling for clarity in airline advertising. That is what the transport committee endeavoured to do, even though I would not say the provisions made it all the way to that complete clarity that we are all seeking. What we had at the Senate level was the airlines then wading in and trying to water down the legislation by saying that it would be difficult for them to be honest, open and above board with the fees they are charging for airline tickets.

We in this corner of the House simply disagree, in the same way that we disagree with the price gouging we are seeing in the oil and gas sector and in the same way that we disagree with the whole range of consumer items where consumers are not protected by the Canadian federal government. We simply disagree that it is impossible to have clarity in advertising for airline fees, that the cost of the entire ticket somehow cannot be put forward. We simply disagree with that, which is why we are disappointed by the Senate bringing back these amendments that waters it down.

What essentially the Senate is saying is this: let us put it off to some uncertain date in the future and maybe some day in Canada consumers will actually know what the complete and total cost of their ticket is going to be when they purchase their airline ticket.

That is very clearly one area from the Senate that we simply cannot support. We want to see consumers protected. We want to see clarity and honesty in the whole issue of airline ticket costs. The Senate amendment is simply unacceptable and the House should reject it.

Another area that the Senate has amended is taking what was a higher bar around the issue of railway noise. We finally have a process, when Bill C-11 is adopted, for local communities such as the Westminster Quay area of New Westminster that are beset by excessive railway noise. We finally have a way by which those communities can fight back against the railways. They have tried dealing with the railways. Some of them have been good and some of them have been pretty rotten.

As a result of that, it continues to be a problem, with excessive railway noise in the early morning hours, excessive shunting and running of diesel engines all in an area where there is a wide variety of condominium and apartments within a few metres of the railway tracks.

Here is what the Senate did in regard to the requirement that the transport committee put into Bill C-11 to require railway companies to cause as little noise and vibration as possible and to set that bar fairly significantly high as far as what the requirements were of railway companies. The Senate simply imposed a standard of reasonableness.

Reasonableness is not a high standard. If the railway companies believe it is reasonable to shunt in the early morning hours because it is simply more profitable for them to do that, it is a defendable concept, but the concept that the transport committee put into the legislation was the concept of as little noise and vibration as possible. There is where there is a very clear disagreement between the two houses.

As little noise and vibration as possible would mean that railway companies would have to justify their shunting in the Westminster Quay area of New Westminster rather than shunting out in the Port Mann area where there are very few homes and where there is not that urban disruption of the environment. The running of diesel engines might be justified for a variety of reasons as being reasonable from the railway's point of view, but it does not mean that the railways are causing as little noise and vibration as possible.

What we have had is a step back. Even though I think it is fair to say that people in communities who are afflicted with this excessive level of railway noise are happy to see any movement forward, the Senate amendments water down an important bar that was set. That is why we will be rejecting this amendment as well. We hope that the Senate will simply agree that higher standards are the most important way to go as far as Canadians are concerned. This is not a small issue.

I am going to cite a community noise study that was done in the area of the member for Vancouver East. Daily average noise exposures at three monitoring sites near the railways in east Vancouver found that the 24 hour equivalent sound level was beyond the acceptable level of 55 decibels by an average of 10 to 15 decibels. In other words, the noise level was beyond the acceptable level in an urban environment. There is no doubt that in the port lands in east Vancouver the railway noise went far beyond those levels, by ten to 15 decibels, which is roughly twice as loud as the actual limit of 55 decibels that has been established by Health Canada and the CMHC.

It is important to note that the noise monitoring found that railway noise continued, to quote from the report, “largely unabated through the nighttime hours, 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.”. That is a problem in east Vancouver and I can tell members that it is a problem in New Westminster as well. We are seeing the shunting and the running of diesel engines right through the night.

At the transport committee, NDP members called for very strict limits as one of a whole series of amendments that we brought forward to improve the legislation. During the evening hours and overnight hours, we suggested that railways be restricted to the type of activities they could do in urban areas. Their shunting would have to take place in more rural or removed areas, away from urban areas, and they would be restricted in the type of high noise level that we are hearing now.

Those are our reasons, what I think are two powerful reasons. There is the issue of making sure that we have clarity, openness and accountability around airline fees and that this is brought in as quickly as possible, not set off for some future agenda. We want to make sure that there is a high level of requirement for the railway companies to make as little noise as possible, that they have to meet that requirement rather than what we have now, which is essentially no process at all. To say that we are subjecting it, as the Senate would have us do, to what is reasonable from a railway point of view, is simply not on.

While I have a few more minutes, I would like to talk a bit more about some of the other amendments to Bill C-11 that were brought forward by the NDP at the transport committee. It is important to raise those issues with respect to what could have been in the bill and what is not.

One of the things in Bill C-11 that both the governing party and the Liberal Party brought forward was that members of the Canadian Transportation Agency must come from the national capital region. In fact, there now is a requirement in the legislation that members of the Canadian Transportation Agency, who have an important role to play as mediators in many aspects of this legislation, have to come from the national capital region. What the NDP submitted as an amendment was that each of the regions of Canada, for example, Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies and British Columbia, be represented because of the difference in geography and the difference in transportation requirements from coast to coast to coast.

We think it is extremely important that the regions be represented. People from Ottawa should not be making decisions about transportation policy or mediation in British Columbia. Simply put, British Columbia has different and often very rigorous transportation requirements. It does not make sense, then, to have these members sit in Ottawa. It is important to note that the amendment was refused and that all of the members of the Canadian Transportation Agency have to live in Ottawa. That is unfortunate.

I spelled out why we are rejecting the Senate amendments and we certainly hope that members from all four corners of the House will join with us, so that we can have essentially a better Bill C-11 that goes back to the Senate once we have rejected their amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, even though my presentation will be split in half, with the time approaching 9 o'clock, I will try to get some NDP points across before we terminate this evening. I will come back tomorrow to talk more about Bill C-11. I am not sure that will interest the Conservatives in the room because I have to be critical about this one step forward and two steps back. This is the nature of the way Conservatives tackle transportation policy.

Bill C-11 makes some modest improvements in some areas, and I will come back in a moment to what the Senate has done to diminish those improvements.

At the same time as we are moving forward with C-11 and the Senate amendments, the government is now pushing Bill C-6, which will diminish airline safety in Canada, by handing over responsibility to the companies themselves. Some of these companies will handle it well, while other companies, as testimony very clearly showed, will not handle it in a responsible way. The government, unfortunately, is proceeding along the same path as the Liberals did by diminishing the type of air safety that Canadians want to see. I will have a chance to talk about that issue later.

I will come back to Bill C-11. The bill is disappointing because even though it does make some modest progress in a number of areas, it could have gone much further. The NDP offered up dozens of amendments to strengthen the bill, some of which we were able to get through and some of which were rejected by the Conservatives and Liberals on committee.

The bill provides more honesty around airfares, something for which Canadians have been calling. Canadians are sick and tired of the manipulation they see around airfares and incomplete airfares being advertised. Bill C-11 does provide some modest framework around how airfares can be advertised.

This is one of the elements that was attacked by the other House. It is deplorable to the NDP that even though the provisions were modest, they could have been improved, but we see a step backward as the Senate amendments come back to the House.

There are some provisions in the legislation for shippers. Hopefully, other provisions for shippers will be contained in Bill C-58, which will be coming forward in the House. It is, by no means, as far as the government could have gone, and it is disappointing. We have taken one step forward, yet we see steps back in other areas.

There is finally a process in place for railway noise, and this is very welcome. As we saw under 13 years of Liberal government, nothing was done to address important issues for Canadians. Railways make excessive noise in urban communities.

We heard testimony from Mayor Wayne Wright of my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster. Brian Allen, who is a resident of Westminster Key, is a very strong activist for diminishing railway noise. The citizens of Westminster Key are constantly subjected to excessive railway noise. They provided some valuable input to the committee.

The NDP put forward amendments that would have provided a strict framework for railway companies so they could not make excessive noise in the evening and overnight, particularly when there are shunting yards in the area of the Lower Mainland, away from urban areas, in Port Mann. We offered those amendments after that valuable input from some of the citizens of New Westminster. We were able to incorporate some but not all of those improvements.

We have a step back with the Senate amendments. The Senate wants to take us backward to a time when railway companies could essentially prove reasonableness in their level of noise in urban communities, as opposed to what the transport committee actually came up with, which required railway companies to cause as little noise and vibration as possible.

We had modest improvements. We at least had a process finally in place after many years of the Liberals ignoring the issue. The committee put forward modest improvements, and the NDP wanted to go much further. The modest improvements have been thrown away and now the bill is back in the House.

As parliamentarians, we have to take a stand against those Senate amendments. They water down what were modest improvements in Bill C-11 in necessary areas, areas that we had to attack, areas that Canadians looked for redress for some time, yet they were dealt with only partially.

I believe my time is up for this evening, but I look forward to coming back to this issue tomorrow.

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

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure to answer this question.

Yes indeed, this legislation clearly states the obligation of railways with respect to noise and vibration. The agency certainly has jurisdiction there. I would suggest the member contact it.

I would like to deal with my colleague's first comment about the Liberals putting legislation forward similar to this bill, which they did, but it took seven years and they did not get it passed.

I am proud to stand in the House today. Bill C-6, Bill C-11 and Bill C-3 were all on the order paper for seven years under the previous Liberal government and none of them passed. All three have now passed. Bill C-6 was passed by committee a couple of days ago. We are very proud of this government's initiative. In less than 18 months, three bills have been put forward that were never passed by the Liberals.

Transport, infrastructure and communities

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

In accordance with its order of reference of Tuesday, November 7, 2006, your committee has considered and held hearings on the subject matter of Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, and agreed on Monday, June 11, 2007 to report it with amendments.

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

I'm going to move amendment NDP-13, Mr. Chair. We have the opinion from the Library of Parliament on Bill C-6 and the Access to Information Act. This has been forwarded to the committee.

What we have is essentially now seven new sections that will take away from access to information. What we have currently under the Aeronautics Act is two sections already listed in schedule II of the Access to Information Act. Essentially, we would be adding the following: sections 5.392; 5.393; subsections 5.394(2); 5.397(2); 22(2); paragraph 24.1(4); and subsection 24.7.

So what we have is a widespread exemption from disclosure under access to information. That is clearly not in the interests of the travelling public. It simply is not; there's no other way to put it. We heard very strong testimony. I would take the time of the committee to read through some of the testimony of Ken Rubin and other witnesses who came forward, if members of the committee want to hear that testimony repeated for them.

Essentially, what has been very clear from testimony from the beginning is that you can't simply say we'll have Bill C-6 and will take away wholesale mandatory exemptions from disclosure in the Access to Information Act. The public needs often to get this information. Under the Access to Information Act we've already seen that even now it's difficult to get information out. We've talked about some of the applications under access to information where text arrives blanked out that took years to actually come through the system.

If we go from two to adding seven new sections where there is mandatory exemption, then what we're simply doing is locking away that information. And it's public domain information. When people choose their airline, when they choose which flight to put their family on, they have to know.

I have no doubt that we need to strengthen the access to information provisions, so that we're not moving from two to nine sections where there's mandatory exemption. We need to provide the checks and balances, and we need to make sure that even though we have a very convoluted and complicated and long process under access to information—this information just doesn't get shoved out the door, but takes a lot of diligence and hard work to get—at least those provisions exist, so that eventually the truth will come out.

My fear is that if we do not water down what are quite radical portions of this act, then the truth will never come out. In a case where companies may act in an irresponsible way and lives may hang in the balance, I think our responsibility as parliamentarians is to make sure that there is no watering down of access to information. It is complicated and long now. We can't make it virtually a vault, from which that safety information will never come out into the public domain. That's why I'm moving amendment NDP-13.

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

Mr. Chair, these amendments in this section--amendments NDP-12.2.1, NDP-12.3, NDP-12.4, NDP-12.5, and NDP-12.6--are designed to toughen penalties in this section of Bill C-6.

What we have here is the option currently that a company can essentially receive a notice of violation without penalty. In other words, you can commit the crime and not do any of the time. It's a bit contradictory with the Conservatives' justice policy, certainly, but what we're endeavouring to do with these amendments is allow for strict penalties around violations to ensure that there is compliance with the law. All the amendments are in that vein.

If members of the committee want, I can move each of them separately or I can move them as a block for discussion; I'll leave that up to you. This is one case, I think, Mr. Chair, in which the amendments do jibe together in such a way that there could be a group discussion.

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

Yes, it is, Mr. Chair.

Obviously, I feel very strongly that it is not appropriate to allow Bill C-6 to override the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act, but we've had this debate and others have disagreed. That becomes more of a public domain debate. I don't think we need to spend more time arguing that here around this table.

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

If I recall, I think it was Lib-2. The amendment I was proposing is not quite the same, but I was proposing that we reference the Canada Labour Code in Bill C-6 for greater certainty.

If we need to have the phrase “for greater certainty”, then I'm quite prepared to do it, if somebody wants to recommend it. It would be a friendly amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I think the more we're discussing this, the more we're actually seeing the necessity to have it in place. If there is no contradiction between the Canada Labour Code and the Aeronautics Act, then it is advisable to have that option available to employees. It is an option. The specific wording of the amendment is “may make a complaint in writing”. It gives an avenue for that employee. It's “may make”. It's not an absolute; it's not a requirement. It is an option that employees have.

Very clearly, the Canada Labour Code needs to govern the discussions that take place at this level. Otherwise if an employee is punished, if that employee is disciplined, if that employee is dismissed, what we have is the SMS, because this is, as Mr. Bélanger correctly identifies, within the SMS systems of the act. We have what we received two weeks ago: the enterprise manager's simplified event review process of SMS-related non-compliance events.

So was there a contravention of the Aeronautics Act? Yes. Was this contravention committed by a person or enterprise governed by an SMS? Yes. Was the contravention internally reported and documented within the enterprise? Yes. Was the contravention committed intentionally by the enterprise? Yes. We lead to “the enterprise manager submits within 12 months a detection notice to aviation enforcement”.

If what we are doing is setting up a system—a very long, convoluted system—for an employee who has lost their job as a result of actions that we are trying to protect against by reinforcing certain provisions of this bill, then in a very real sense an employer can take disciplinary action against the employee. It may be in a couple of years. The company may be fined. Maybe the employee can go to court. But there is no protection. There is no internal system that allows that employee to reach out in an immediate way. The amendment here offers a 90-day timeline so the employee can move through the Canada Labour Code, through the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

It is not something that requires them to go to court. It is not something that requires them to simply trust in Transport Canada. It is something the employees themselves can do. That system of checks and balances we should want to see within Bill C-6, because certainly that's what witnesses called for: a system of checks and balances.

So what the amendments do is establish that system of checks and balances and give an option to the employee. It's not an obligation; “may make” is an option for employees to take, so that employees have the ability to move through an existing process and protect their job when they have been disciplined or dismissed unduly.

It doesn't make sense for us to set up a series of checks and balances but have in the end no ability for the employee to do anything except either trust in Transport Canada or essentially go through the court system. That makes no sense, because what it does is allow for a hollow shell. We're essentially saying to the employees, “We don't really want any actions to be taken against you, but if the actions are taken against you, we're not going to leave you with any options.”

I think to be consistent with what we have discussed thus far in the committee--Mr. Laframboise's amendment, the Liberal amendments that have come forward, and even the government's own amendments--we need a process for those employees, and that's what this amendment provides for.

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

This puts already established procedure in place. All three of the opposition parties offered amendments to this effect, that provisions of the Canada Labour Code would apply even in provisions of Bill C-6. We're certainly not contradicting anything in Bill C-6. It offers that level of protection for the employee that I think we all share.

We want to ensure that the employee whistle-blower is protected. This allows for that level of protection. Otherwise we don't have a clear and defined process for an employee. This allows very clearly for that through the Canada Industrial Relations Board and the Canada Labour Code.

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

Mr. Reinhardt, I did ask you what the process was for the employee. The process is going to court, which we would have regardless of whether Bill C-6 existed. This allows for a legal process that is outside the court system.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 27(1), commencing on Wednesday June 13, 2007, and concluding on June 21, 2007, the House shall continue to sit until 10 p.m.

He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a motion that can be made one day a year, not on Christmas Day or Ground Hog Day, but this day, the 10th sitting day before June 23. It is a motion that can be made to allow the House to sit late into the evening.

I know that many members, when they look at that portion of the calendar and they see possible extension of sitting hours, they think that means we get to leave early for summer vacation, but that is not what it means. What it means is that under the Standing Orders of the House we can potentially sit and work late to get as much of the people's business done as possible because there are very important priorities for Canadians.

I will bear my soul here and say that it was not always my intention to move this motion. It was my hope that it would not be necessary. I was hoping that we would be making good progress.

For example, Bill C-52 in particular, the budget implementation bill was a bill which we believed we had an understanding with the other parties; in fact it had been shaken on by the member for St. Catharines, the member of the Liberal Party for Scarborough and others that it would be over to the Senate by June 6. Somewhere along the way the Liberal Party sought to treat it a little bit differently and as a result we are still debating it here almost a week later than the date we thought it would be over at the Senate. As a result of course we have lost considerable time to deal with other priorities for Canadians.

I want to talk about what those other priorities for Canadians might be, but first I want to focus on that number one priority which is Bill C-52, the budget implementation bill. As we have heard from many people in the House today, if that bill does not pass by the time the House rises for the summer, if that bill has not been dealt with, there are a number of financial priorities on issues that are very important to Canadians that will be lost, because it is a bill that reaches back to the previous fiscal year to spend funds. Those funds have to be allocated. The bill has to be passed and receive royal assent in order for those funds to be available in that fashion. If not, they are lost.

Some of those examples are ones which we have heard about today. The one that is at the top of my personal list is the $620 million in the budget for the patient wait times guarantee trust. This is money that is allocated to assist provinces in addressing what is one of our number one priorities—actually one of our top five priorities; I should put it that way—from the last election. That priority is to achieve a patient wait times guarantee, to help people get the kind of health care they need on a basis that is reasonable, that is practical, that is clinically sound.

For too long we saw patient wait times under the previous government actually double in length. We have this much vaunted Canadian health care system that we all purport to believe in, but if we really believe in it, we have to see that it works. An important part of it working is that Canadians should receive the health care that they need on a timely basis. That is what the $612 million is specifically aimed at.

The provinces are very anxious to receive these funds. It means a great deal for a lot of provinces. In my own province of Ontario that means $200 million plus of real money that Ontario needs for its health care system. The same thing, together with other elements, will mean for the province of Nova Scotia for health care $639 million including the transfer there. There is similar money throughout the country.

We are talking of significant funds. There are other elements in the budget. Much of that transfer will not be lost, as I said, because it is in the main budget funds, but the patient wait times guarantee money, that $612 million, is money that will be lost if we do not deal with that on a timely basis.

Another one that is very important is the $1.5 billion for the clean air and climate change trust. That is to help the provinces implement their plans to reduce greenhouse gases. It is very important.

On January 4 of this year, the Prime Minister addressed Canadians and identified what our priorities would be in government this year. One of those major priorities was to take real action on the environment. We have just seen that at the G-8 summit. In the summit declaration Canada's approach is an approach that is drastically different than it was for 13 years under the previous government when greenhouse gas emissions rose dramatically regardless of the commitments it took on. Now we have a national plan that results in real reductions, an actual plan that does that in both the short and medium term but also very importantly in the long term.

It is that approach by the Canadian government that was hailed as an example not just by world leaders, by other G-8 leaders, but by journalists from around the world, by special interest groups. The World Wildlife Fund, for example, issued a statement heralding Canada's approach as a model. The reason it is held out as a model and an example is it is an approach that can be used regardless of how lousy one's track record may be. This is important for a lot of the major emitters that had not been part of the arrangements up until now or did not have obligations under Kyoto to implement, major emitters like China, India, Brazil and the United States, to get them to the table and realize that if we are going to take on the challenges of addressing greenhouse gas emissions and turning around the risk of climate change and what it can potentially do to our world, we are going to have to take action in the long term. That is the approach of Canada that is being held as a model.

An important critical component of that approach is to engage and involve the provinces and ensure that they have in their hands the resources they need to be able to deliver. A big part of that is that $1.5 billion of ecotrust money, the clean air and climate change trust money. I underline that if we do not get Bill C-52 passed in time, that money will be lost.

This is where the delay and obstruction that the Liberal Party in particular has been conducting has been very harmful to the interests of Canadians who care about the environment, and in fact even those who do not care about the environment, because even if people do not care about it, it does affect them. It is important for all Canadians that they have that healthy environment.

Another example of the money that could be lost if Bill C-52 is not approved, if the Liberal obstruction is successful, is the $400 million for the Canada Health Infoway project. This is state of the art technology so that people can have better health care, taking advantage of technology to improve our health care system. This is something that is very important for the provinces to be able to deliver on the health care for Canadians, for their residents. Again if the Liberals are successful in their delay and obstruction plan this is something that will be lost if the bill is not dealt with and does not receive royal assent in the near future.

There is another one that is of particular of interest to me because it does affect residents in my part of Ontario. In fact the announcement was made in York region where I live and where my constituency is. That is the $225 million to protect endangered spaces, working in conjunction with groups like the Nature Conservancy of Canada to acquire sensitive lands that otherwise might be lost to development, or if not to acquire them, to put in place the kinds of conservation easements to ensure that they will be protected in their natural state for the foreseeable future, for as long as our legal regime remains in place, which is basically for as long as life continues as we know it. That money is very important but that money and the potential to protect those endangered lands will be lost if we cannot get the budget implementation bill passed in the appropriate time.

I also want to talk about the $30 million going to the Rick Hansen Foundation. Rick Hansen is the man in motion, a great Canadian who rolled his wheelchair around the world. He is a very strong personality and a great activist for his cause of spinal cord research. He suffered an injury but he showed that it did not hold him back and he did his around the world tour. I think it was in 1984 when he started his tour, which was an inspiration to all of us. The ongoing work of the foundation from the money he raised then is important. There is $30 million that we would like to see dedicated to that foundation. That $30 million would be lost if the Liberals have their way and they delay and obstruct this bill past the deadline we are dealing with.

For all of those reasons, the budget implementation bill is very important, not just because we want to see it passed, and that is a good reason, but there are actual, real consequences with a ticking clock, because of the fact that a significant amount of the funds are anchored in the previous fiscal year before March 31. That means we have to pass it before the books are closed. Basically we have to get royal assent. We have to get it all the way through before the folks here on Parliament Hill go home to their ridings for the summer. In order to do that, we want to see the potential to deal with this bill for as long as we need to.

I might add that we had hoped to be debating many other bills but the Liberals have chosen to delay this budget implementation bill in every way possible and for as long as they can, as we have seen in the House today and as we saw last Friday and so on. We have tried other measures to speed things along but they have stepped in to block them every time.

The other important bill that we need to deal with is Bill C-23, a Criminal Code amendment. Our justice agenda is very important, and Bill C-23 is a bill to update the Criminal Code provisions. It has come back to the House from committee and it is now at report stage. We would like to deal with that quickly but we will need some time in the House.

Similarly, we are expecting to see Bill C-11 on transport come back from the Senate with amendments. We will need to see whether this House agrees with those amendments or not. Bill C-11 is an important bill that has been around a long time, as members can see by the number, and we have been waiting for about a year to deal with it.

We also have Bill C-31, the election integrity bill. It is in the Senate and the Senate has indicated a desire to make some amendments to the bill. We and, I think, all parties would like to see that bill in this place, or at least three of the parties in the House would. The bill was amended at committee and we, as the government, accepted the amendments proposed by the Liberals and the Bloc.

Unfortunately, the Liberals in the Senate had a very different view of how the bill should work from the Liberals in the House of Commons. The Liberals in the Senate are actually getting rid of the House of Commons Liberal amendment on how to deal with the lists and the disclosure of information to political parties. They actually changed it to a position that was identical to what the Conservatives had originally proposed at committee.

As a result of the Liberals in the Senate deciding that they do not agree with the Liberals in the House of Commons, it means that we as the House of Commons need to deal with that bill one more time once the Senate has dealt with it.

We are waiting for that little ping-pong game between the Liberals in the Senate and the Liberals in the House of Commons to come to an end. When it does end, hopefully we can achieve a resolution on which we can all agree to ensure that future elections will proceed with a greater degree of integrity and probity, something that is very important to all parties and all members of this House.

Another bill that has come back after a long stay at committee is Bill C-42, the Quarantine Act, a very important bill on health matters and something we would like to deal with.

I know of one bill that the opposition House leader, the member for Wascana, has been very generous in showing a willingness to fast track and deal with very quickly and we are hoping to have it at report stage in the House very soon. I think we are in a position where we can do that very soon. I know other parties want some level of scrutiny so the very generous offer of the opposition House leader was one that we took up, but not everybody did. We can seek to get it passed through as many stages as possible in the House as quickly as possible. The bill I am talking about is the one dealing with Olympic symbols. I would like to see it dealt with on the House of Commons side and then go to the Senate.

That is an important bill for the folks who are putting together the 2010 Olympic Games in Whistler and Vancouver. It is important because it deals with copyright, trademarks and the like. We all know how challenging it is to put on these kind of games in this day and age and the ability to protect copyrights, to deal with merchandise and to generate that revenue to support the athletes, the games and the legacy venues that will be constructed as a result of that is important to the people who are involved, whether it be the athletes, the organizers or the people in those communities who will benefit from the legacies.

We are also waiting on other bills, such as Bill C-51, the Nunavik Inuit land claims, and Bill C-59 on video piracy. Bill C-59 was just introduced but the newspapers are saying that it is an important bill because it would create some meaningful consequences for people who engage in the illegal video taping of major films with the ultimate objective of putting them on the black market to sell them illegally without the copyright rights to it. That is something that has been hurting the film industry.

In places like Vancouver and Toronto, in fact all across the country, the film industry has become very important, but those places in particular. It is important that Canada maintains its credibility within that industry and that we support our artists and the people who give value to that intellectual property and that we show leadership as a country in protecting it.

In the future, as we move away from manufactured goods and products to the kinds of services that have more to do with intellectual property, we need to be seen as real leaders in that regard. As I said, media reports are suggesting that all parties actually support Bill C-59, which is why we would like to move it quickly.

Another bill that we recently introduced would support the Red Cross/Red Crescent in the adoption of a new symbol. We need to do that here in Canada through legislation because of a charter that exists. The bill would create an additional non-denominational symbol, which is the Red Crystal, that can be used through ratification of a treaty. If the Red Crescent symbol or the Red Cross symbol creates some discomfort with the local population, the Red Cross/Red Crescent Society would be able to use the Red Crystal symbol as an alternate symbol, which is why as a country we need to recognize and ratify that it would have all the protections under the Geneva convention so that anyone would respect it. However, there would be consequences if people misused the symbol in trying to conduct an offensive military operation. The symbol would need to be used for the purpose intended, which is to protect and save lives in difficult scenes around the world.

All of the bills I have spoken about are on the House calendar. Some are in front of us and we would like to deal with them but others are still at committee.

I did not even speak to the first nations land management, which is a bill that was launched in the Senate.

We would like to see the passage of some bills that are still in committee and which we would like to see back from committee. We thought some would come back a little bit sooner, such as Bill C-6, the amendments to the Aeronautics Act. The committee has been doing clause by clause on Bill C-6 for almost a month now. I am glad to see that the committee is being that attentive but it is a bill that is important and we would like to see it.

The bill that I hope the committee deals with soon is Bill C-32 on impaired driving. I have spoken about the importance of justice and making our streets and communities safer. It was one of the five cornerstone priorities of the Conservatives when we ran in the last election. It was restated on January 4 by the Prime Minister as another priority.

I should acknowledge that we have had some good progress on getting some of those justice bills through the House but it was not easy. Some of them, like Bill C-10 dealing with mandatory penalties for gun crimes, stayed at committee. If one were to listen to politicians speak, one would think there is a consensus on the importance of mandatory penalties for gun crimes. Even the Liberal Party in the last election had that as one of its key elements in its platform.

However, when it came to committee, things were a little bit different. The Liberal Party actually gutted the meaningful parts of the legislation and it held up the legislation at committee for 252 days. Fortunately, that time is past and, thanks to the support of the New Democratic Party, we were able to put some teeth back into that legislation and make it meaningful. The legislation now contains some meaningful mandatory penalties for those gang members and crooks who want to terrorize our communities with guns and commit violent acts. They will face real consequences. When they commit an offence like that they will go to jail. There will be no more “get out of jail free” card and no more house arrest as a solution. They will actually serve real jail time for some of those offences. Where there already were mandatory penalties, they will be tougher and stronger mandatory penalities so that we can take real action.

I know these are important justice issues for Canadians, and that the gun legislation is a part of it, but the other bill that we are waiting for from committee is Bill C-32 on impaired driving. It is very easy to deal with impaired driving on alcohol right now because we have breathalyzers and standards. However, a much more difficult element is driving impaired through the use of other illegal substances, such as controlled or narcotic substances, or, in simple terms, drugs. People who use and abuse drugs and then proceed to drive a vehicle are just as impaired, if not more impaired, as someone who has consumed excessive alcohol. The consequences in terms of the risk to other drivers on the road are just as great. It can change the lives of a family if someone were to die or become injured. The lives of a family could be absolutely shattered when an accident occurs because of that kind of behaviour.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will be continuing with the business of supply.

Tomorrow we hope to conclude third reading of Bill C-52. In answer to the question on priorities, I would point out that Bill C-52, the budget implement bill, is the number one priority of this government. We can talk about other priorities after we see an indication that it will be heading for royal assent. If we do not have it, it will result in the loss of $4.3 billion in 2006-07 year end measures which include: $1.5 billion for the Canada ecotrust for the provinces; $600 million for patient wait times guarantees; $400 million for Canada Health Infoway; $200 million for protection of endangered species; $30 million for the Great Bear rain forest; $600 million for labour market agreements for the provinces; $30 million for the Rick Hansen Foundation; $100 million in aid for Afghanistan; $100 million to Genome Canada; and so on. It is a long list of important priorities financing that will be lost if the bill is not passed by the end of this session in June. That is obviously our number one priority.

Next week will be getting things done for all of us week when we consider a number of bills that are in their final stages of the legislative process.

The following bills will be placed under Government Orders for debate: Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which the Senate reported with amendments and which is now back before the House to receive the approval of the members, and Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments).

We are awaiting the Senate's report with amendments on Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act.

Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, including amendments in relation to foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts, and to provide for the bijural expression of the provisions of that Act, Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Quarantine Act and Bill C-47, An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act, will probably be passed by the House at third reading.

Discussions have taken place with the opposition parties, and there may be consent to fast-track some or all of the following bills: Bill C-59, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unauthorized recording of a movie), Bill S-6, An Act to amend the First Nations Land Management Act and Bill C-51, An Act to give effect to the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

There is also a possibility of quick passage of a new bill entitled “An act to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, an act to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society and the Trademarks Act”, which appears on today's notice paper.

There are a number of other bills I am still hoping we could get included in getting things done for all of us week, provided that they get reported back from committee, in particular, Bill C-6 aeronautics; Bill C-27 dangerous offenders; Bill C-32 impaired driving; and Bill C-44, the bill to grant first nations people the human rights that every other Canadian enjoys. First nations people expect the House to get things done for them as well, so I urge the aboriginal affairs committee to stop delaying Bill C-44 and report it back to the House early next week. It is a priority for this government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Now we are dealing with the motion, that the committee extend its sitting hours by 60 minutes on Mondays and Wednesdays until the completion of Bill C-6 clause-by-clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That the committee extend its sitting hours by 60 minutes on Mondays and Wednesdays starting next Monday, June 11, until the completion of Bill C-6 clause-by-clause.

Mr. Jean.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The motion before the committee is that the committee extend its sitting hours by 60 minutes on Mondays and Wednesdays until the completion of Bill C-6 clause-by-clause.

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

Certainly. Okay.

I'll come back to some of the testimony that we heard, Mr. Chair.

We heard from Kirsten Brazier, and she said:

If we are really concerned about safety and truly want to become the safest country in the world, then we need to start sharing information with a view to discussing and learning from our mistakes. Instead of sanitizing and restricting safety information--such as the service difficulty reports, Transportation Safety Board accident and incident reports, and the CADORS--we need to make this information more accessible in its entirety with industry so we can learn from it.

That was in her testimony on Bill C-6.

And there's Ken Rubin's testimony:

Already, the effect of the SMS system is felt on access because I've already been denied the first SMS report on Air Transat done in 2003. I got documents, which were dated November, from Transport Canada. They said that as of then there were already 200 secret SMS investigation reports that the public will never get to see, however serious some of the infractions may be.

I noticed in the committee that the minister and officials came to you and said there were only 100 files. Where are the hundreds of SMS reports? When are they going to be made public?

Dozens of regulatory audits were stopped in their tracks, which I or any member of the public could have applied for, but no, they're gone because they've now been transferred, in part, to SMS. This is a power play of the worst order.

I could go on and on, Mr. Chair. This is something that witnesses have continuously cited: the issue around secrecy being not in the public interest.

So we'll await a legal opinion, but I think it would be disingenuous to say that the ATI applies to information that's contained throughout this. This is information for which ultimately there have to be doors. There has to be a system of checks and balances, and essentially what we've been doing today, regrettably, is taking away those checks and balances by not addressing some of the worst problems in Bill C-6 as presented.

We fixed a whole host of other sections of less weight and less impact on Canadians' lives. This is why I can't understand why we're not fixing probably what are the greatest concerns that have been raised by witnesses coming before this committee.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask Mrs. Stanfield if she could present us with a legal opinion for next Monday on what aspects of ATI actually are covered and what are excluded by the bill. What we have is a difference of opinion here on the access to information and what is covered within the bill, so if you could present us with an opinion on how the access to information actually applies to Bill C-6, that would be helpful for all members of the committee, I think.

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

Mr. Chair, this is important legislation. You can't rush it, and we're already starting to make errors.

This is the proposed section that deals with “the collection, analysis and use of information derived from a flight data recorder, then any information collected under the process that comes into the Minister’s possession...”. So it's a different treatment of information, the same situation.

Right now, it's only

available except in the following circumstances:

(a) a court or other body that has jurisdiction to compel the production or discovery...

(b) the information is disclosed

--it doesn't say how--

or made available in a form that prevents it from being related to an identifiable person...

It doesn't say how that is going to occur. So for all intents and purposes, we have paragraphs (a) and (c), that

the Minister considers that disclosing the information or making it available is necessary for the purposes of section 7.1.

That's an important clarification we have now that we didn't have on Monday. Section 7.1 restricts it to suspending, cancelling, or refusing to renew a Canadian aviation document, so we have an even tighter restriction than we had when we discussed this issue on Monday.

Essentially we're putting in place the same structure of information that we've seen has done damage to rail safety. Essentially now you have to go through the court system or, in extreme cases, presumably where people have already died, “if the Minister decides to suspend, cancel or refuse to renew a Canadian aviation document”, then it could be disclosed.

It is in no way in the interest of the public to restrict that information through the court system. It just does not make sense. And it doesn't pass the nod test. If you talk to Canadians and say this is important information that is held internally by a company itself, if it's a good company, if the company has a good reputation, people might say that's understandable.

But we've had companies.... And Judge Moshansky and others have testified to this effect. I think the most compelling testimony was from Kirsten Brazier. She talked about the competitive push to diminish safety standards.

And here we're going to put ourselves in a situation where that information is tightly held and not available to the public. Even through a small door of the restrictions around access to information, it makes absolutely no sense. We've worked very carefully up until now, but today I get the sense that the wheels are starting to fall off what was a careful examination of Bill C-6. It is clearly not in the public interest to force individuals to go through the court system for disclosure of information where lives may hang in the balance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 56. Our orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, November 7, 2006, are Bill C-6, an Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Joining us again today, from the Department of Transport, are Mr. Franz Reinhardt, Susan Stanfield, Merlin Preuss, Jacques Laplante, and Alex Weatherston.

Welcome, again.

(On clause 12)

As we adjourned the last meeting, we were dealing with a government amendment, and I'm advised that it is in front of you again. I hope everyone has had a chance to look at it. We're going to refer to it as the new G-3, which is G-3.1. We had a certain amount of debate around this particular amendment, and I'll open the floor up again for debate, unless the committee is ready to proceed.

I'll open the floor.

Mr. Julian.

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

Perhaps I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that if such an amendment is adopted for whatever restrictions might be contained in Bill C-6, the Aeronautics Act would therefore not apply and all the information must be divulged?

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

But you have specific references in this case, in Bill C-6, which will become the Aeronautics Act. Perhaps we could have an answer from Justice.

[Franz Reinhardt]

Well, it will have something to do with it when enforcement comes into play, but we're not talking about enforcement here.

I see you reading this, and I would like you to read this. I'm trying to explain voluntary and non-punitive reporting and also SMS protection. If I were given the opportunity to explain, you would see how important it is to the gathering of safety information.

Let me explain. There are two systems. Each company governed by SMS will have an internal reporting process where employees are encouraged to report. I'll take you to the page that says “Reporting process”. Proposed section 5.392 is applicable to organizations governed by SMS. It's available to any employees within the organization, to encourage reporting. Employees can even report that they have committed a violation without fear of reprisal. Information is reported to the organization, not to Transport Canada.

There is no report, Monsieur Laframboise, to Transport Canada. It's reported to the organization. The information is used to analyze hazards and take corrective measures. If we don't tell them it's protected and that it's not going to be in a newspaper tomorrow, they will not report. If they have committed a blunder, a breach of one of the standard operating procedures, they need to be protected. The information would not necessarily have been available to the organization before Bill C-6. When there is no protection, they do not report. Bill C-6 will encourage internal reporting by providing protection of the information and the reporting employee.

On the second page, for those who want to follow it with me, the internal information is protected even if it comes into Transport Canada's possession during inspection, audits, and assessments. It's not our intent to go and get that information, but we may from time to time. We need to be there to validate systems. We need to be there to inspect. We need to be there to audit. Transport Canada is saying that if it comes into our possession we will not use this for enforcement purposes. We want employees to report to the employer and we want to guarantee that we will not use it against them.

Also, it is protected from access to information. These days they are not reporting because they don't have protection. They want to report, so this is the guarantee we're giving them.

The information cannot be used for disciplinary purposes against reporting employees, except in accordance with the non-punitive reporting policy under SMS. Each company will have its conditions. They will tell employees that if they do things wilfully, of course they will be punished. If a report is error-based and it is not wilful, they will not punish.

You will see there has been an add-on to the protections with respect to a person reporting about another employee. That is to make sure there will not be reprisals against a person.

The information cannot be released under ATIP if it has been obtained by Transport Canada. If it has been obtained by Transport Canada, the information may be used to advance safety, but only after being de-identified. We want to protect the travelling public. We want to advance safety. We can do this. We don't need the name of the person; we want to use the aggregate safety information.

A court can always obtain information under the power of subpoena. The TSB has that power. This is not usually the type of information the TSB will want, because they will have evidence and other.... But if they wanted that type of information for whatever reason, they have authority to get it.

Also, if the safety of operations is considered to be jeopardized, Transport Canada may use information to substantiate administrative certificate action under proposed section 7.1. The minister can issue a civil aviation document, a CAD. The minister can remove that document if a company no longer meets the conditions of issuance or if it's in the public interest. Sometimes the only way we can prove there is a problem is with the evidence that is there. In that case, the minister could use it. He would not use it for enforcement purposes, because we gave our commitment; however, if there is such an egregious situation in a company that we need to refer to some of those elements, the minister can use it. It is the best of both worlds.

This is one system of reporting under SMS. I'm telling you again: If you don't have those protections, the information will not come flowing in. The companies cannot do their trend analyses. They cannot use their risk assessments. They cannot take corrective measures, because things will simply not be reported. You have the whistle-blower type of protection there, and you also have the protection for access.

The other system is the universal non-punitive reporting process, and this one, you will see, is under proposed section 5.395 of the Aeronautics Act, dealt with in clause 12 of Bill C-6. This is universal, and it's voluntary. Anybody can use this. It is applicable and available to anybody anytime, anywhere to report any type of information relating to aviation safety or security. It could be a flight attendant reporting; it could be a pilot or a co-pilot. It could be a janitor on the floor seeing a safety situation that he or she needs to report.

The program is established and funded by the minister, but it's intended to be administered by an objective and independent third party government agency such as NRC, TSB or another. This is similar to what they have in the United States. It's called the aviation safety reporting system, funded by the FAA but administered by NASA. I have included a website link there, so if people want to get more information, they can get a pretty good idea of what is done with the information. There is lots of feedback and lots of good information coming in, but there's some protection.

Persons may even report, without fear of reprisal, that they have committed the violation. Information is reported to a third party government agency, not Transport Canada. So Transport Canada is not there.

The information is used to gather as much evidence, as much aviation safety data as possible to perform trend analyses, studies, reviews, and examination of hazards and incidents to advance safety, inform others of potential safety and security pitfalls, and prevent recurrence. It is information that would never be reported if no protection were provided to the reporting person. The information reported is de-identified within a very short period of time. Usually—and it's going to be done through regulation—it's between 24 and 48 hours. The person writes in, and there's a strip. The strip is detached and sent back to the person to show it was de-identified. But before doing this, the agency will call and try to get as much information as possible, and then de-identify it.

The information cannot be used for enforcement action or any legal, disciplinary, or other proceedings. The information cannot be released under ATIP until it is de-identified. Of course, when it is de-identified, it's going to be released and used also by the minister and by that agency to advance safety. The aggregate information may be used by the custodian repository government agency and Transport Canada, as I just mentioned, but only after being de-identified.

The protection for the reporting person applies even if proceedings are initiated against the person based on independent evidence obtained outside of the program. Let me give you an example. Someone reports there and says, “It wasn't intentional. I did that”, and they receive a receipt for this that will allow them to oppose this if someone wants to prosecute. Then he can say, “Hey, I did report”, and just as it is in the States, I have that “get out of jail” ticket here, provided that:

(1) the person has reported through the program;

(2) the information doesn't relate to a reportable accident or incident, because TSB requires that those things be reported, so they have no protection there;

(3) the alleged violation was not committed wilfully. Again, if there is evidence and inspectors can prove that things were done wilfully, there will be no protection;

(4) the person is not found by a court or tribunal to have committed a violation of the Aeronautics Act within the previous two years;

(5) the person has not made use of the protection before a court or tribunal within the previous two years;

(6) the person has already—in case they are working for an SMS company—reported the event through the internal SMS reporting process when the person is employed by an organization governed by SMS.

Again, there's lots of good information here. The American website will show you how much good information there is, which you won't get if you don't give the protection. It is of the utmost importance to have the protection in order to get people to report. Otherwise, they won't report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, and welcome back.

I think we have a little more clarity now with regard to Bill C-6 and what the G-3 amendment is.

Before I recognize Mr. Julian, I want to advise the committee that we are still dealing with BQ-16. This document was put forward to give Monsieur Laframboise an opportunity to look at it and see if it meshes with what he's thinking. It's certainly the one document we have that refers to clause 12 on page 15 and gives the details as the best piece of information we've had so far.

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the last point, we have already addressed that.

However, with regard to the balance of Thursday's statement, I am pleased to respond that today and tomorrow we will continue with Bill C-55, the expanded voting opportunities bill; Bill C-14, the adoption bill; Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; and Bill C-45, the fisheries act.

In the last Thursday statement, we indicated that we were hoping to have this week as “enhancing the quality of the life of first nations people week” but this was cancelled by the opposition parties when they did not release Bill C-44 from committee, the bill that would give the first nations protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Not only is it being held up now but, as early as this morning in this House, the opposition obstructed our efforts to get the bill dealt with forthwith so that first nations people could have the human rights that every other Canadian enjoys. We know that if all parties would agree to proceed with that, as we saw when we sought unanimous consent, it could proceed, but some would prefer to obstruct it.

Next week will be welcome back from committee week, when we welcome business that has been at committee, including some that has been stalled there for some time. We will deal with Bill C-52, the budget implementation bill, which will begin report stage on Monday and, hopefully, we can get third reading wrapped up by Tuesday.

Following the budget bill, we will call for report stage and third reading of Bill C-35, bail reform. After that, we will call Bill C-23, the Criminal Code amendments. I hardly remember when Bill C-23 was sent to the committee by this House. That took place long before I was even House leader 228 days ago.

Thursday, June 7, shall be the last allotted day. There are a number of other bills that we would like to include in our welcome back from committee week. I still hope we can see Bill C-44, the amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act, to which I just referred; Bill C-6, the amendments to the Aeronautics Act; Bill C-27 dealing with dangerous offenders; Bill C-32 dealing with impaired driving; and Bill C-33 dealing with foreign investment, if the opposition parties will release those from committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That is it, and I thank you.

Just for the committee's interest, before I adjourn, on Monday we will be dealing with Bill C-6.

The meeting is adjourned.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a similar point of view. The designated organizations are something that many witnesses identified as a quite major flaw in Bill C-6. We have, from three opposition parties, similar amendments to try to make the bill operative in a way that doesn't present the danger many witnesses felt it presented.

So either the government withdraws amendment G-2 or we stand it aside, but I certainly won't be voting for it.

I think it's a bit like putting the cart before the horse to consider this when we have substantial amendments from the three opposition parties that deal with that proposed section. It would be, I think, more effective to proceed to the BQ motion or the Liberal motion, and then after we've had the debate and discussion there, if we needed to consider amendment G-2 we could come back to it at that point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The letter will go out ASAP.

On Wednesday we will be spending the first two hours of committee dealing with Bill C-6. We'll deal with the estimates in the third hour, as agreed upon at the last meeting.

Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Susan Stanfield]

I'd have to think about that, but I think “by regulation” in this provision, at the very least, would cause some confusion when it's read with the rest of the provision, because section 4.2 is a listing of the responsibilities. It's kind of a high-level list of responsibilities and authorities that the minister has to administer the Aeronautics Act and to enter agreements and things like that. Not all of those responsibilities can be fulfilled by means of a regulatory instrument, and you wouldn't necessarily want it to have to be done that way. Some of those responsibilities...it would make it very difficult to negotiate the agreements if everything had to be done by regulation.

I'm not sure what the intention was of “by regulation” at the end of that provision, but I don't think it achieves a goal that you would want to have.

The only other concern I have is with the wording itself. I think it really constrains the minister, because it says:

shall ensure that aeronautical activities are conducted at all times in a manner

There's no ability in that wording for him to do anything different, and “shall ensure” is really difficult wording to live up to.

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

That is fine with me, provided they answer the question properly. My advisors tell me that, under Bill C-6, some information held by the minister could be disclosed only with the minister's agreement. Thus, under the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act the board might be unable to obtain some information if the minister refused to disclose it.

You say that the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board can obtain all the information it needs, but under Bill C-6, the minister has the power to keep some information confidential. But I don't want the minister to keep information confidential in an investigation. That's a kind of situation where I find myself asking questions, like Mr. Bélanger. Who is right here?

In the same vein, on February 2, 2006, the department issued a directive restricting the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. The department should be more open and allow our researchers to have access to all the documents that are pertinent so that I can make an enlightened decision.

Mr. Chairman, I have no difficulty with Mr. Bélanger's request, provided that our researchers have the time they need for the analysis.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With regard to the last part of the discussion and access to information, my colleague Mr. Laframboise might have an answer when we come to section 43 and to proposed amendment LIB-8. If the amendment is passed, it will change the scope of exceptions put forward by the government in Bill C-6.

To come back to amendments BQ-6, LIB-2 and NDP-3, I have a question on a somewhat different issue. I will put the question to our researchers and legal advisor, and it concerns departmental officials, or the people moving the amendment that refers to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, and the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act.

Are the people who drafted those amendments for my colleagues aware of all provisions in those two statutes and the regulations flowing from them? Are they satisfied with those statutes? That is homework I have not done, Mr. Chairman. Can the researchers tell us whether there could be unforeseen obstacles we should know about in the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, or in the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act? Here, we are including references to statutes I have not read, and I certainly don't know all the existing regulations that flow from those statutes.

I would therefore like to know if there could be unforeseen obstacles or conflicts arising from there.

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

Except that my advisors tell me the new confidentiality clauses here in Bill C-6 could restrict those two powers investigators have under section 19. Subsection 19(9)(a) and sections (10) and (15.1) establish the information which must be produced in an investigation. The new confidentiality clauses in Bill C-6 could thus restrict those two powers. In my view, nothing must impose restrictions on those powers.

[Franz Reinhardt]

I've listened to your arguments, and I must say that we do of course recognize that the statutes you have listed prevail over the Aeronautics Act. That is not a problem.

However, as I was saying the other day, section 14 of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act is very clear with regard to the board's priority with respect to any other investigation that might take place.

In the same fashion, clause 4.2(2) of Bill C-6 stipulates that:

An investigation carried out by the Minister of Transport under paragraph (1)(n) may not have as its purpose the making of findings as to causes and contributing factors of an aviation accident or incident.

That is to allow the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board to take priority. Their investigators also have all the necessary powers in their legislation. In my view, as things stand, those statutes already prevail. The Department of Justice has informed me that we should not create a precedent by including references in bills that give priority to other bills, when the latter priority is already clear.

That is the only point I wanted to make.

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

Obviously, you understand that I was going to maintain the amendment moved, BQ-6. First of all, I believe that provisions in the Canada Labour Code would supercede this legislation. Even the Liberal Party moved a similar amendment. With regard to the statutes added in amendment BQ-6, they are the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act.

I could put forward a number of additional arguments in support of maintaining this condition in the amendment. However, among other things, it would be important for access to information issues to ensure that Bill C-6 does not contradict the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act. It is important for us as lawmakers to show to Transport Canada and to all stakeholders that, under Bill C-6, the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act would prevail over Bill C-6, with regard to access to information among other things. Some provisions in Bill C-6 restrict access to information.

It is very important for us to ensure that access to information is always authorized at the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board. In spite of some of the comments made, we know Bill C-6 can restrict some powers under the act, with respect to access to information among other things.

However, even if the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, stipulates that its authority is exclusive, it is important that such authority be maintained. In February 2006, Transport Canada published a policy statement that among other things restricted part of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. Transport Canada must understand that the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act still prevails over Bill C-6. Transportation of dangerous goods is an activity that must be regulated. That is why Parliament passed a law to that effect in 1992.

That is what I had to add, Mr. Chairman. I maintain the amendment moved, BQ-6.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Order, please.

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting 53. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, November 7, 2006, we are here to study Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Again joining us from the Department of Transport are Franz Reinhardt, Susan Stanfield, and Merlin Preuss. Christopher Shelley is from—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

So based on what I've heard, we will book three hours on Wednesday, May 30. During the first two, we'll deal with C-6 clause-by-clause, and during the third hour we will deal with estimates with departmental officials.

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

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

Monsieur Bélanger.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

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

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

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

[Susan Stanfield]

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

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

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

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

Mr. Jean.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

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

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

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Okay. I'm advised that Bill C-6 wouldn't apply to your particular company as a one-operator company.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

No, I'm not asking that you tear it apart. What I'm suggesting is that even though the discussion around this table is about C-6, in fact your company and your industry—the smaller operators, the air taxis—aren't covered under Bill C-6 at this time. Is that your understanding?

[Kirsten Brazier]

Unfortunately, I'm not an expert on Bill C-6, so I can't tear it apart, if that's what you're asking.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you.

Ms. Brazier, I have a very quick question. You've been here and you've told us some of your concerns about Transport Canada. We talked a bit about SMS. It's too early to implement it in your particular industry. Have you reviewed Bill C-6?

[Richard Balnis]

In the documents you will see, though we did not put this forward, that the regulations were passed June 15, 2005, without waiting for Bill C-6, under an existing authority. The very same day, the regulations were exempted.

The document that is in tab 5, if I'm not mistaken, was then used as a three-year phase-in period, and each carrier has to do certain things to meet certain milestones. Transport Canada goes in and involves themselves in the process to make sure they have done this or that. If you fail to meet a milestone, they will threaten to suspend.

Within each company the company sets up its own process. We at Air Canada were involved at monthly meetings, but we haven't been involved for the last year and a half, because we raised uncomfortable questions.

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

I'd like to thank you all for coming forward today.

These are, along with those of Justice Moshansky and the Canadian Federal Pilots Association, the best presentations we've heard on Bill C-6.

We've had two types of presentations. We've had ones about the much more profound operating concerns you've all raised today, and they're much more in depth. We've had some presentations that are very theoretical, as you mentioned, Mr. Balnis, ones that simply talk in theory about SMS. But every single in-depth presentation has criticized this government's reckless bent to diminish air safety, and it's a matter of concern to us. Thank you for being so detailed.

I would like to come back to the issue of inspectors and ask you this, Mr. Balnis, because we've had some playing fast and loose with figures around flight inspections within the Canadian airline industry. The government unfortunately made a kind of mistake this week in publishing a moving-forward document where they actually talk about an attrition rate of 32% to 50% over the next few years. I think they obviously have confirmed what everybody has been raising as a major concern, that we are lowering the number of inspectors and lowering the surveillance around safety. Do you have any comments about inspections, inspectors, and the attrition rate that is so clearly identified in this document this week?

[Ken Rubin]

Yes, it is.

I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding, because you have to really understand what clause 43 of Bill C-6 means. You have to turn back to section 24 of the Access to Information Act. What you have in the Access to Information Act are the principles of the act; then people can apply, and there's a set of exemptions, sections 12 to 26. There's commercial confidentiality and there's policy advice. Section 24 says, listen, there are certain statutory provisions passed by Parliament--and this would be one of them--confidentiality provisions within the statute, as laid out in clause 43, including the confidential reporting system, the tape system, the military plane system, and the medical doctor system, which I have less of a problem with. Those things are statutory confidentiality prohibitions that are to be totally excluded from the act. There's no injury test, there's no time limit, and there's no public interest override possible, because they fall within that section.

That's a lot different from putting in the checks and balances. I get...regulatory audits whether I agree or not. I've appealed on some, where there are commercial confidentiality citations or there's personal information or whatever. At least I get a separate report; I don't get nothing. Maybe that's fine in terms of income tax material, but in safety matters, no, it's not fine. That's what I object to. Put it under the ordinary provisions of the act.

They're putting this up God-like on a pedestal and saying confidentiality is so important, we're obsessed so much with it, trust will break down. It's not true. I've see many an access request where initially the parties have a confidentiality agreement, or claim they do, but under the Access to Information Act it isn't the case because there are other provisions that take precedence.

Really, in the end, that full and frank discussion can still occur and things can be done. But to say right from the start, sweep it away and we'll never hear anything any more, ever, is just a touch too much, so to speak.

[Ken Rubin, Public Interest Researcher, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

As a public interest researcher and frequent access user, I've spent 25 years battling to get various air safety reports made public, including going all the way to the court of appeal.

My concern is that air safety public reporting is being ambushed and essentially eliminated under Bill C-6. The reasoning is that confidential reporting is needed under a safety management system and therefore officials with airline companies believe they must end having publicly available inspection reports done. This secrecy focus must immediately be challenged and changed in the interests of the public and the travelling public.

If left intact in Bill C-6, the effect is public mistrust in air safety. There will be no more publicly available Air Canada, or WestJet, or any other audits. It will also skew Transportation Safety Board accident reports, and, possibly worse, safety errors, because there is too close a reliance on a confidential reporting relationship between airlines and Transport Canada.

The public's right to know about air safety, from repair maintenance to engine problems to human error, is in jeopardy. Fliers must feel safe on planes and be able to choose the best carrier based on up-to-date reliable information.

It is most serious that Transport Canada opts for a veil of secrecy in our skies, airports, and repair facilities.

Bill C-6, clause 43, places air safety reports in a permanent secrecy category via schedule II, section 24, of the Access to Information Act. It's being placed in the same category as tax information. Even cabinet confidences are only 20 years, and security intelligence information doesn't get exempted forever.

There are exemptions, there are public interest overrides, there are injury tests, but not in this case, and that's wrong.

Section 2 of the Access to Information Act says that the laws of this country are extended to try to open up and disclose information. Section 24, things within the act, eliminates any possibility of ever getting that information.

Part of the study of the accountability act, on which I was a witness, had this very discussion of whether we should have a public interest override section within the Access to Information Act, and even whether section 24 should be abolished. It wasn't, and this is going to be the end result if you go down this path.

Already, the effect of the SMS system is felt on access because I've already been denied the first SMS report on Air Transat done in 2003. I got documents, which were dated November, from Transport Canada. They said that as of then there were already 200 secret SMS investigation reports that the public will never get to see, however serious some of the infractions may be.

I noticed in the committee that the minister and officials came to you and said there were only 100 files. Where are the hundreds of SMS reports? When are they going to be made public?

Dozens of regulatory audits were stopped in their tracks, which I or any member of the public could have applied for, but no, they're gone because they've now been transferred, in part, to SMS. This is a power play of the worst order.

It all sounds familiar to me, though, because back in the 1990s, Transport Canada tried to implement a confidential reporting system in partnership with airlines. But when I discovered that from 1990 to 1994 they had done dozens of these studies with the industry, they immediately, once I applied for them under access and I had given the clerk the cancellation order, cancelled them in October of 1994.

Now Transport Canada has ordered that all public regulatory audits be cancelled so that work can “proceed in confidence”.

The gravity, Mr. Chairman and members, of the changes in Bill C-6 can be further illustrated by another past experience. Transport Canada tried to hide from me another confidential air safety post-accident safety survey for which I had to go all the way, for seven years, to the Federal Court of Appeal, the Nationair report where 14 Canadian crew members and 240 Nigerian Muslim pilgrims lost their lives in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on July 11, 1991. That crash occurred after takeoff and occurred because of an improperly serviced DC-8 Nationair plane.

Transport Canada at the time argued against me that revealing the Nationair report would affect the trust relationship with all airlines and any chance in future of getting confidential materials.

Well, that report, when it was revealed--and I shared it with next of kin and the media--catalogued many serious past maintenance and other deficiencies at Nationair. It also revealed that there were problems known to the regulators well in advance of the crash.

Under Bill C-6, I would never have gained access to the Nationair report. Under Bill C-6's sweeping confidentiality reporting systems, I would never get the reporting system being promoted. I would never get the cockpit tapes from the Swissair crash off the Nova Scotia coast, or any other black box tapes, so crucial for understanding what happened.

There are four fatal myths associated with this 100% confidentiality SMS reporting system that the Harper government and many in the airline industry seem, for some reason, to support, when it's going to come crashing down on them too.

One is that the airline industry will always report and always tell the truth via a confidential voluntary reporting system. I think it was Justice Dubin who destroyed that myth many years ago.

The second assumes that Transport Canada itself will maintain a healthy distance from the industry and will be diligent and always do its enforcement job in secret.

The third myth assumes that there's no need for whistle-blowing provisions because the reputed positive benefits of an immunity-based industry-government cooperative reporting system will eliminate any need for people to tell the truth.

Finally, there's a bit of a myth that there'll be more substantive records created through Transport Canada's changing to this confidential system. It's going to be like check-offs of performance standards, and not what you think is going to be the real substantive material.

The underlying problem, by way of conclusion, is that Transport Canada's minister, under the Aeronautics Act, has a dual role: one part is to protect the public when it comes to air safety and one part is to promote the expansion and commerce associated with the airline industry. In my opinion, the transport minister's primary function under Bill C-6, which should be revised, should be on air safety.

Regular, much improved, substantive, and regular air safety regulatory audits need to be done and released in a timely fashion. Air safety reporting by the industry must be transparent, must be made publicly available in objective government summary form, and must be subject to coverage under access legislation. Whistle-blowing protection guarantees must be incorporated too, under a revised Bill C-6.

Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon cannot claim that he and his officials, as they said in front of the committee, are simply adding, via an industry-government confidential non-punitive SMS reporting system, just another protective layer to improve air safety and are implementing a system far removed from airline self-regulation. Rather, they are attempting to circumvent public scrutiny and abdicating their public regulatory responsibilities.

I wouldn't feel this strongly if I hadn't got the Air Ontario regulatory audit a month after the Dryden air crash, which showed what a poor maintenance record that airline had. If that had been reviewed beforehand under access, maybe those people wouldn't have died. But you know what? Under Bill C-6, I'd never get that kind of stuff.

Bill C-6 needs to be seriously amended to bring in proactive disclosure policies and tougher air safety inspection and enforcement reporting to Transport Canada.

Thank you, members.

[Kirsten Brazier, President, Operations Manager and Chief Pilot, Dax Air Inc.]

Thank you all for the opportunity to speak here today. We must apologize if it seems we have little documentation to present, for we only recently found out that our request had been granted.

What we offer you is our own experience and frustration in dealing with the present regulatory system.

My name is Kirsten Brazier, and this is my partner, Gerry Whalen. Together we own and operate Dax Air, an air taxi service operating under CAR 703 and an approved maintenance organization. We presently operate a Beech 18 on floats. Our work involves tourism, service to the northern communities, and transporting trades and utility people to remote areas.

We are representative of many small operators located across the country who do similar work, and as we stated in our letter to the committee, we are the most underrepresented and the most affected by Bill C-6.

Prior to starting our company, both my partner and I have had experience in operational management positions, so we are both familiar with navigating through and understanding the regulations. While we feel the CARs were a hand-me-down from 705 and not specifically tailored to 703, the regulations in general are, for the most part, fair and logical. It wasn't until we began the process of certifying both our AMO and air operation, and later doing work for other companies, that we began to see major discrepancies between the CARs and how they were being interpreted and applied by Transport Canada.

In certifying our own company, we wanted a clear and concise set of manuals that met the CAR, the standard we must meet in order to operate. Because the manuals are legal documents, we did not want the extra liability and confusion from unnecessary policies and procedures. We feel there is no such thing as a lesser or greater standard in the CARs. One either meets or does not meet the standard.

Other operators were interested in our approach and asked for our help in ridding themselves of unncessary and excessive policies and procedures in their own manuals.

There seemed to be a general confusion about what the actual standards were. We discovered that individual inspectors in various regions had different interpretations of the regulations and accordingly had differing policies to deal with these interpretations. We discovered that the regulations are not being applied equally and fairly across the system.

When we tried to resolve our concerns as they came up, we discovered a complete lack of due process within Transport Canada. The existing complaint resolution system is ineffective, inaccessible, and lacks an independent arbitrator. We also discovered that there is no protection in place for operators, who are often bullied by individual inspectors, or in some cases departments, to meet individual and regional policies not required by law.

When we started our company, we both agreed we would do our best to abide by the standards and operate safely and responsibly. We knew we were going to have a tough time because of the state of the industry we are in, where cutting corners is common practice. We are all faced with rising costs and a declining market, so to compete, many operators continue to overload their airplanes, cut rates, and push weather, basically getting more done for less.

While this “getting more done for less” philosophy may be attractive to the customer who must pay for the services offered, what the customer doesn't understand is the risk they are taking by supporting this attitude. This only serves to tighten the market further.

As an example, in our second year of operation, Dax Air was faced with this type of choice when one of our customers gave us an ultimatum: either carry the loads he wanted or he would find someone else who would. Since we refused, he found another operator.

We find ourselves in the position that many others have come to: either cut corners to survive and compete or go out of business. While we expected a few challenges in establishing our company and operating principles, we also expected that our doing-it-right approach would be supported by Transport Canada. We have found that this is not the case.

In trying to understand why these conditions exist, we began reaching out to other operators across the country; we discovered there were similar problems in many areas and that others were concerned that nothing was being done. Most of these operators are afraid to come forward for fear of reprisal from Transport Canada. In speaking publicly about these issues, we too are afraid of reprisal, based on our experiences with Transport Canada.

Speaking as a CAR 703 operator, we feel that a safety management system is a valuable business tool. However, given the state of CAR 703 as we described it, we feel there are root problems with 703. Until they are rectified, the air taxi is not ready for SMS. The culture of safety cannot be legislated.

Our research has shown that Transport Canada is using sanitized statistics to support their safety claims, as we pointed out in our letter of April 22. Transport Canada is telling us we have the safest aviation system in the world. They said the same thing ten years ago, in the SATOPS final report, yet many of the same issues discussed in that report continue to exist today.

If we are really concerned about safety and truly want to become the safest country in the world, then we need to start sharing information with a view to discussing and learning from our mistakes. Instead of sanitizing and restricting safety information--such as the service difficulty reports, Transportation Safety Board accident and incident reports, and the CADORS--we need to make this information more accessible in its entirety with industry so we can learn from it.

At present, this information is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain from Transport Canada and the TSB, who continuously cite privacy issues as the reason not to make the information available. As far as we're concerned, the day an operator receives the right to operate and provide services for the public, they become accountable to the public, to the government, to the industry, and to themselves for the way they operate.

In closing, there are many issues we would like to discuss to support our claim, but time being a limiting factor, we have prepared the preceding statement as an issue of priority that we as a 703 operator feel must be addressed. If given a set of clear and concise regulations to follow, if given fair and equitable application of existing regulations by Transport Canada, the industry will, we feel, become safer by default.

Thank you.

[Richard Balnis, Senior Researcher, Air Canada Component, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today on behalf of the airline division of CUPE.

You should have all been given a slimmer volume, which is our complete brief, in a tumble edition. The red side is English; the blue side is French. You also have two fatter companion documents in support of our brief. The red is the English only; the blue is the French edition.

The airline division of CUPE represents about 8,500 in-charge flight attendants and flight attendants at six airlines. Along with pilots and our passengers, we are among the first victims when our safety systems fail. Our brief is extensive. I would simply like to give you a quick overview.

Bill C-6 constitutes a revolution in how aviation safety will be addressed in Canada for years to come, as shown on page 1 of our brief. As summarized on pages 2 and 3, we have serious concerns about Bill C-6 and SMS.

We brought these concerns directly to Minister Cannon on November 7, 2006, urging him to retool Bill C-6 for safety before proceeding further. If these key amendments are not made, Bill C-6 cannot proceed, in our view. Our first preference is that the government actually withdraw Bill C-6. But if the government insists on proceeding, we urge you in the strongest possible terms to make the needed amendments to ensure that Bill C-6 is indeed viable and effective legislation that will actually improve aviation safety. Let me explain why this must be done.

First, we address the changing role of Transport Canada's regulatory oversight in an era of SMS in pages 4 to 7 of our submission. Despite efforts to discredit Justice Moshansky and the inspectors' unions, TC oversight of the aviation industry is changing. It is being dismantled today well in advance of aviation SMS being in place. We are only in year two of a three-year implementation plan for large air operators. We are five to twenty years away from when SMS will be fully functional. Professional and dedicated inspectors are there for concern. So is Justice Moshansky. So are flight attendants and pilots.

It is wrong to believe that Bill C-6 compels or requires a diminished role for Transport Canada's oversight and inspectorate under SMS. Rather, it is what the department thinks it can do in the absence of effective parliamentary scrutiny and legislative requirements that is the real issue. We believe we have a fix for your consideration. It is found in our recommendations 1 and 2 on page 7. We offer them for your consideration.

We next address, on pages 8 to 9 of our brief, the myth that the current regulations will remain untouched under SMS. This is the so-called regulatory box the government has been telling you about, the rock upon which the SMS castle is built--it's my fist here. The myth is that SMS is an additional safety layer, the umbrella over my fist. It's supposed to be the hand over the fist. This is too simplistic a view, for two reasons.

First, as the department has already told you, this regulatory box is undergoing tremendous change. On page 8 of our brief, this box will become more performance-based, vaguer, more flexible, and open to interpretation. We give you one recent example on page 9 and in tab 1. This is giving more discretion to air operators and others to decide how they will be safe. The rock is crumbling.

Secondly, what the government and the department have not told you, but witnesses like the Canadian Airports Council have, on page 9, is that the regulatory box will also get smaller. Transport is withdrawing entirely from large areas of setting the safety rules. The rock is disappearing. As the box shrinks, the actual level of safety will be determined more and more by the airlines themselves, using SMS. That's why they are so enthusiastic about it. When we move to the theory, as you can see on pages 10 to 13 of our brief, and as my fist becomes smaller and vaguer, SMS takes over more and more how the industry will run itself. And then the paper over the rock, as in the child's game, and we all know who wins.

That's why you, as our elected politicians, should be concerned. In our view—and we've presented you documents so you can look at it for yourselves, in tabs 2, 3, 4, and 5—we believe Canada's SMS regulations explicitly transfer the determination of the level of safety to the air operator who will decide how to manage their risks, including the level of risk they are willing to accept in their operations. This will be a different risk threshold than one set by Transport Canada.

Transport Canada's speaking points say that SMS is not a deregulation of safety. But it is precisely that, because it has transferred the determination of appropriate risk levels from Transport Canada to the airlines, or from the public interest to the determination and interests of private shareholders.

Beginning on page 12 of our brief, we can show you examples. Fuel requirements are being reduced and replaced with a risk assessment. Management can now use risk assessments to make a conscious decision not to do anything. The level of acceptable risk is being redefined upward.

We give several simple examples. Little flight attendant injuries are no longer being investigated. DEET protection against malaria, once provided to flight attendants, has now disappeared as a result of a management-only risk assessment. That airline has accepted the risk that its flight attendants would get malaria as a cost of doing business.

Please read Justice Moshansky in tab 7, as cited on page 13, where he talks about the emergence of a more permissive, higher-risk-taking environment that contributed directly to the Dryden crash.

Safety costs money, and sometimes managers won't and don't spend it. And they won't have to do that with the elevated risks under SMS.

Can you do anything at this stage, as Parliament? I have here a brochure from Transport Canada. It shows their implementation plan for SMS. It's all in place by 2010, regardless of what you do. The only way you can get Transport Canada to listen is to amend Bill C-6 to make its SMS provisions stronger.

Beginning on page 15, we offer recommendations 3 through 11 to improve the SMS.

Moving on, and mindful of my time and the patience of the chair, the concept of designated organizations has rightfully attracted your attention. We provide our analysis on pages 17 to 19 of our brief. We offer two options for the committee's consideration. But after speaking to the author of tab 10, which is the helicopter study, on Monday, we are learning that whatever Parliament does with this clause, Transport Canada thinks it can delegate these powers without even having to use this designation provision and even if this clause is removed entirely by you. We'll answer more in the question period.

We are also concerned about the encroachment of SMS on our rights under the Canada Labour Code. There is a long analysis on pages 20 to 26. We believe you can make the two pieces of legislation work together. As shown in tab 11, Transport Canada and HRSDC have found the way to do that. Unfortunately, ATAC and the air operators want you to amend the legislation to prevent this.

When it comes to occupational health and safety, flight attendants are beginning to recognize that SMS means “selling out my safety”. We urge you to look at recommendations 17 to 23 to help fix this problem. And on pages 27 to 29, we ask you to look at the issues of immunity and confidentiality. You must disentangle them.

Finally, you must address whistle-blower protection. On page 32 of our brief, Transport Canada cites CAIRS as their answer. CUPE recently used CAIRS to report the operation of an aircraft with less than the legally required number of flight attendants—for us, a serious issue. The report was merely acknowledged. There was no further response or assistance provided. It looks as though the issue was simply given back to the violating airline. There have now been two or three more similar incidents there.

Even if CAIRS worked, it is only half the story. We need the equivalent of U.S. FAA whistle-blower protection, and I have the language here.

I could go on, but I have tried the chair's patience.

As shown on page 42, we need your assistance in the following areas to amend this legislation. We need amendments to Bill C-6 and existing SMS practices to correct deficiency; we need to add whistle-blower protection for employees; we must rescind or limit the powers to self-regulate; you must coordinate Bill C-6 with part II of the code and other legislation; you must revisit excessive confidentiality and secrecy provisions; you should restore our right to flight time limitations; and you must maintain proper safety oversight.

We have offered you 37 recommendations, consolidated at the end of the brief.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear and to present our views. We look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. This is meeting number 48 and we are meeting 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 Union of Public Employees, we have Mr. Richard Balnis; from Dax Air Inc., we have Kirsten Brazier and Gerry Whalen; and as an individual, Mr. Ken Rubin.

I think everyone has been notified that we open the process with commentary. You have about seven minutes. We'll do all three and then we'll move around the table for questions from the groups here.

With that, I'll start with Mr. Balnis.

Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit a question of privilege concerning the intimidation by the director general of Civil Aviation, Merlin Preuss, a senior government official, towards witnesses that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities would like to hear in the context of its study of Bill C-6.

Greg Holbrook, the chair of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association, appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on February 21, 2007. A few days before Mr. Holbrook's testimony, Merlin Preuss called Mr. Holbrook's office and had a telephone conversation with Kathy Marquis, Mr. Holbrook's assistant, regarding the testimony that he was about to give before the committee. In an affidavit, a sworn statement, Ms. Marquis said that, during the telephone conversation, Mr. Preuss said to her:

Tell him that if he plans to have any Transport Canada employees with him, I will have an issue with it.

Additionally, regarding the telephone conversation, she also said:

My clear impression from the words and tone of Mr. Preuss' communication was that he wished to discourage Transport Canada Inspectors from testifying before the Standing Committee.

This is extremely disturbing, because under the circumstances, I believe that it constitutes a breach of parliamentary privilege. I would like to bring to your attention citation 865 in the 6th edition of Beauchesne, which reads as follows:

To tamper with a witness in regard to the evidence to be given before the House or any committee or to endeavour, directly or indirectly to deter or hinder any person from appearing or giving evidence is a breach of privilege. Corruption or intimidation is not an essential ingredient in this offence. It is equally a breach to attempt, by persuasion or solicitations of any kind, to induce a witness not to attend, or to withhold evidence or to give false evidence.

The situation is especially disturbing since this is not the first time Merlin Preuss, a senior official, has behaved in this way. As proof, I have attached two documents: an e-mail dated March 7, 2007 addressed to “DL OTT civil aviation group” regarding a study by the Auditor General—in this case, the Auditor General was asking officials for information—and a letter dated July 10, 2006 to Pamela Sachs of the Canadian Union of Public Employees concerning an appearance by officials before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Chapter 3 of Marleau and Montpetit, which pertains to privileges and immunities, states on page 88:

—the intimidation of a committee witness was also found to be prima facie contempt by Speaker Fraser on December 4, 1992. The matter was referred by the House to the Standing Committee on House Management for consideration...In its report, the Committee reaffirmed the principles of parliamentary privilege and the extension of privilege to witnesses...“The protection of witnesses is a fundamental aspect of the privilege that extends to parliamentary proceedings and those persons who participate in them. It is well established in the Parliament of Canada, as in the British Parliament, that witnesses before committees share the same privileges of freedom of speech as do Members—”.

A few lines further on, the committee's report states:

“The protection of witnesses extends to threats made against them or intimidation with respect to their presentations before any parliamentary committee”.

This is essentially what Mr. Preuss has tried to do to various potential witnesses before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and people whom the Auditor General has asked for information.

On page 863 of Marleau and Montpetit, chapter 20, “Committees”, it says:

Tampering with a witness or in any way attempting to deter a witness from giving evidence at a committee meeting may constitute a breach of privilege. Similarly, any interference with or threats against witnesses who have already testified may be treated as a breach of privilege by the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to this breach of my parliamentary privilege. I would also draw your attention to the fact that I am raising this matter at the earliest opportunity. I am aware that the facts I am alleging go back two months. Please allow me to explain myself.

Following the aforementioned events, the committee discussed the matter and passed a motion to call Merlin Preuss before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Mr. Preuss appeared before the committee twice. The first time was March 28, 2007, and the second was April 23. The record of the evidence heard at the April 23 meeting was provided to the members of the committee this morning. I felt it was necessary to have a record of all of the evidence given by Merlin Preuss, a senior official, before raising my question of privilege. As such, I did so without delay as soon as the evidence became available.

If you should find a prima facie case of a breach of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for appearing today.

I've been listening to the testimony on Bill C-6 for a while here. Bill C-6, as a bill, is no surprise. What surprises me are the last-minute allegations that have been coming in the last couple of weeks or so.

Bill C-6 was preceded by Bill C-62. We already heard that in the last Parliament. As I understand it, there were pretty lengthy consultations prior to Bill C-62 as well, before it was introduced. No one raised concerns during that whole process about the inspectorate or the safety issues. The previous government, now the official opposition, didn't raise any caution flags.

As somebody listening to this and following this along and participating in moving Bill C-6 forward, I'm now confronted with hearing the “ifs” or the “might haves” or the “could” or “possibly”. I'm still waiting for some solid evidence that somehow SMS is either going to be a bad thing or that Transport Canada's not fulfilling its obligations, and I'm not hearing that.

SMS—and I've said this before to the committee—is not theory in Canada; it's actually in practice. We have something to look at, at least the beginning of a track record on that. Are we teaching others around the world about SMS? Are we showing others how SMS works? Can you tell us who? What other countries are learning from our experience? Because we have experience in it now; it may not be a lot, but we have experience in it now. Can you enlighten us a bit on that?

[Marc Grégoire]

What is being proposed here is enforceable. There are a number of provisions in Bill C-6 that would make the situation quite different from what it is in rail.

The Railway Safety Act does not provide for very stringent enforcement action. For instance, there are no monetary penalties, and there's no way to lift an operating certificate. The Railway Safety Act is under review now, and we'll have the chance to bring forward all the amendments we wish.

To come back to aviation, if a similar situation occurred in aviation, our inspectors, who would be in the numbers we discussed, would go in. But rather than do the inspection in the way they are doing it today or in the way they used to do it, they would specifically look at a detailed analysis of the safety management system. On the basis of the report, it would indicate that the SMS is not well implemented, and a number of enforcement actions could be taken, or we could decide to go in to do inspections and audits in the usual manner.

All the options are open, and we could lift a certificate or set a huge fine. You will have noticed that in Bill C-6 we are proposing to significantly increase the fines we would be able to set for airlines. All of those avenues and enforcement tools could be used.

It is fundamental in the SMS culture we want to implement that employees must report. It's a reporting culture. We really want to encourage everybody to report problems before they arise and before they become more serious problems. We think it's the best way to improve safety.

But if an employee is fired the first time he makes such a report, the system obviously doesn't work and must be fixed. It wouldn't meet the intent of the actual regulation, but we have all the provisions to address the problem.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

I had hoped to get a chance to ask the minister this question.

I noticed one of the key amendments or proposals outlined in this bill, which I gather is really an updated version of Bill C-62, under the previous government's introduction. One of things that I noticed in the outline, and it was mentioned in the discussion, was the provision to encourage employees of Canadian airlines to report safety concerns voluntarily, without fear of legal or disciplinary action.

On the question of the safety management system and the issue of getting employees to be able to report things in an open or protected way, when we originally started discussing this, I was somewhat impressed with some of the proposals under the SMS, safety management system, for the airline industry.

We had the experience of the reports that came through on the railway. Mr. Grégoire, I guess this would be overlapping your area. These two gentlemen specifically focus on the airline, and I'm going to keep to that.

The connection was that in the safety audit we had done and the safety management system appraisal we had done on CN's operations in rail safety, it indicated that although a safety management system was supposedly in place, one that was supported and advocated by management or even extolled by management, it wasn't necessarily enforced and followed through on. There was a disconnect between management and the employees, the supervisors and the mainline employees. It was something that was in fact reported in the audit and in those reports as being a serious flaw.

In fact, there were instances when employees almost lived in a culture of fear. If they reported things too often, they would be penalized in promotion, even to the extent of being able to maintain their jobs. That concerned me. It concerns me coming back now to Bill C-6 and the proposals.

What do you see as being able to prevent the kind of problem we saw for CN, with its safety management system and the ability of employees to feel they were able to do their jobs and report the deficiencies? How do you see it being covered in the case of what's being proposed here?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

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

Would you suggest that if we had a declaration in Bill C-6 that Transport Canada continue with its regulatory oversight it would be sufficient?

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

In terms of these system-wide changes that occurred because of your recommendations, how many of those changes will be affected or changed in the new legislation, Bill C-6?

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I'm recognizing the difference between size and the ability to have the corporate infrastructure adequate to handle this. Are you concerned, from your understanding of the major carriers, that moving to the self-regulatory system proposed in Bill C-6 will create a problem and increase the risk even with the major carriers, or is that less of a concern to you?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Yes, absolutely.

And I'm suggesting to you that Bill C-6 actually doesn't reduce regulatory oversight. It makes it more efficient and makes it more focused, which is the term you used. I wouldn't necessarily use the word “limited”, but certainly I think we can all agree that the legislation refers to focused audits.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

That's correct.

So for us as a committee, and for the government, safety is the paramount consideration here.

I'm just suggesting to you that we've had numerous witnesses who have reviewed the bill very carefully. In fact, we've had two pilots' unions before us for whom, of course, safety for their pilots is critical, as well as the safety of their passengers. They have stated on the record that they actually support Bill C-6 as being a significant step forward in improving public safety.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

We actually asked questions of the various witnesses, as to whether they saw Bill C-6 as removing regulatory oversight and accountability from the minister's office to the various airline companies. The large majority of the witnesses said no, and they certainly hoped that wouldn't be the case.

So again—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

He was one of the witnesses who actually spoke supportively of Bill C-6.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'm a little bit puzzled, I will say, because we've had testimony from numerous witnesses, and save and except for witnesses from two of the inspectors' unions, all of the other witnesses were supportive of Bill C-6. They had suggested some fine tuning, and we're looking at--

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for attending here today.

You have obviously reviewed Bill C-6 and also the Aeronautics Act; you'd be an expert in that area.

[Virgil P. Moshansky, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and committee members, it is a distinct privilege to address you on this occasion. My name is Virgil Moshansky. Some of you may know me as the commissioner of the inquiry into the Air Ontario jetliner crash at Dryden, Ontario, in 1989 that killed 24 people. My commission became a full-blown inquiry into aviation safety in Canada that took three years to complete.

I spent a further three years advising Transport Canada on the implementation of my commission's 191 recommendations for regulatory reform. My work has been recognized by many, including Transport Canada itself, which presented me with its Canadian aviation safety award in 1995. I continue to consult internationally on aviation matters.

I will deal primarily with clause 12 of Bill C-6. In order to put things into context, I will begin with a little pre-Dryden crash history.

Transport Canada's regulatory efforts went off the rails in the 1980s because of two inconsistent and mutually incompatible policies introduced in 1985 by the federal government of the day, namely deregulation of the airline industry and the policy of fiscal restraint.

Despite government assurances such as are being heard today that aviation safety would not be allowed to be compromised, Transport Canada upper management ignored urgent requests by managers in the aviation regulatory directorate for funding of the badly undermanned inspectorate force. Airline audits and in-flight monitoring, the twin backbones of aviation safety, ceased almost entirely in the months leading up to the Dryden crash, because of a lack of resources.

A cursory Transport Canada audit of Air Ontario five months before the March 10, 1989, Dryden crash, did not even examine the Air Ontario F28 aircraft implementation program. Lack of regulatory oversight virtually left Air Ontario to its own devices, allowing it to set its own inadequate safety standards and enabling it to get away with unconscionable safety deficiencies in its operations, all of which contributed to the crash.

A January 20, 1989, prophetic warning by the acting chief of air carrier operations that air carrier inspection was “no longer able to assure the Minister of the safety of large air carrier commercial services in Canada” and “that a major accident is inevitable in this country” was rebuffed by Transport Canada senior management as inflammatory. Seven weeks later, at Dryden, Ontario, 24 people paid for this cavalier attitude with their lives.

Today, 18 years after Dryden, history is repeating itself, only worse. Cost-cutting is again in vogue at Transport Canada and has been for some time. Transport Canada management have publicly admitted this. Regulatory oversight is not being merely reduced. Except for limited focused audits, it is being systematically dismantled under Bill C-6. All of this is occurring in the face of a predicted doubling of the size of the aviation industry by 2015, as per Transport Canada's own estimates.

In the years following the release of my final report, Transport Canada did a commendable job of addressing most of the major safety issues and regulatory lapses that were identified by the Dryden Inquiry.

After a period of relative calm, numerous serious aviation safety concerns have now returned to haunt the Canadian aviation system, as documented in a remarkable series of newspaper articles in June of 2006 entitled “Dangerous Skies”, written by three investigative reporters of the Hamilton Spectator, Toronto Star, and Waterloo Record newspapers. I recommend that the committee members read these articles, if they have not already done so.

In my view, any objective observer would have to call their findings disturbing. They simply should not be dismissed out of hand, as some have attempted to do. What stands out is that the current deterioration in the state of aviation safety in Canada, as chronicled by these investigative reporters, is coincidental with Transport Canada's progressive reduction in the number of its aviation inspectors since Dryden and its ongoing withdrawal from regulatory enforcement.

This is an ominous sign for the future of air safety in Canada, particularly if Bill C-6 is allowed to proceed in its present form. Many front-line aviation industry workers, expressing fears for their jobs, spoke out on condition of anonymity, but a number of brave souls allowed their names to be published. A few of the latter drew the wrath of their airline employers. Some were suspended for speaking out, thereby highlighting the urgent need in Canada for meaningful whistle-blower legislation.

I am very surprised and disappointed that unlike the case in the United States, the new Canadian whistle-blower legislation provides no protection whatsoever for airline employees, who are the front-line workers closest to the problems and the violations and therefore most in need of such protection.

Clearly it is in the public interest that they be encouraged to report infractions and therefore that they have such protection. I strongly urge this committee to press for whistle-blower protection similar to that in the United States.

Having examined the recent Pollara survey of aviation inspectors, it seems to me that this committee would benefit greatly by hearing from some of these inspectors. The committee must certainly view with concern the alleged attempt on the part of the regulator to dissuade them from appearing before it.

There are many good features in Bill C-6. I most certainly agree with the requirement that each air carrier have in place a safety management system, or SMS, with safety accountability vested in a top executive. This in fact is exactly what I recommended in MCRs 100 to 103 of my final report, which recommendations probably, unknown to most, represent the genesis of present-day SMS.

However, I must voice major concern with the second objective of the SMS initiative, which is the downloading from Transport Canada onto the air carriers of the responsibility of establishing and carrying out their own safety protocols and oversight of regulatory compliance, including enforcement.

I respectfully submit that if SMS is to succeed, it must be accompanied by an effective, properly financed, and adequately staffed system of oversight and enforcement on the part of the regulator. That is the key factor that is missing from the Transport Canada SMS initiative, and it has the overwhelming potential to be the Achilles heel of SMS, especially in the case of secondary carriers, the charter and air taxi operators.

Historically, this is the area where the bottom line has the greatest impact and where the greatest risk to aviation safety resides. Some are barely economically viable operations and simply do not have the financial ability of the major carriers to maintain a proper SMS. It is extremely naive to think that under SMS a financially strapped operator is, on its own initiative, going to place necessary safety expenditures ahead of economic survival. The historical record hardly inspires faith in the voluntary implementation of safety measures by some such carriers, especially in the absence of strong regulatory oversight.

It is of very great significance that in those few countries that have introduced a form of SMS into their civil aviation systems, not a single one has abandoned regulatory oversight. Think about that.

The SMS concept relies on self-reporting of violations and safety concerns by airline personnel. This is a potential weakness of SMS. Historically, self-reporting and even confidential reporting is a hard sell. Fear of peer recrimination is a serious inhibiting factor that militates against such reporting, as is also the fear for job security. The absence of whistle-blower protection compounds the problem.

Transport Canada refers to the Australian experience with SMS in support of its own SMS initiative. The problem is that Transport Canada is only telling half the story. It leaves out the part about regulatory oversight.

Most significantly, under the Australian SMS regime, a strict regulatory oversight responsibility for monitoring surveillance and enforcement rests with the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority, or CASA, Australia's equivalent to Transport Canada. The CASA SMS manual places the obligation on CASA itself to enforce civil aviation laws pursuant to the Civil Aviation Act of 1988.

Excerpts from pertinent sections of the CASA manual state the following. Section 2.2:

The Civil Aviation Act 1988 places responsibility on CASA to conduct the safety regulation of civil air operations...by means that include 'developing effective enforcement strategies to secure compliance with aviation safety standards'.

That appears in CAA 9(1)(d).

The following statement of policy is of particular significance. “The key focus of CASA's enforcement will be to address safety by consistent and appropriate enforcement action.”

The former manager of flight safety at Qantas Airlines and deputy chairman of Airservices Australia, has stated the following:

It seems that what is proposed in the Canadian Bill goes beyond anything I have heard of with an NAA (National Airworthiness Authority) and would seem to abrogate one of its core functions (perhaps even under the Convention itself and possibly Annexe 13 re safety systems.

The translation is that Transport Canada's approach to SMS may well be in violation of international aviation law.

My Australian source goes on to say, and I quote:

...no attempts have been made...

--that is, in Australia--

...to lessen the amount of surveillance - recently CASA changed from conducting two annual audits to one, but would have many more operational surveillance activities and more unannounced surveillance.

It occurs to me that Transport might already have done some benchmarking with Australia, in which case the committee should insist on seeing the results and conclusions.The committee may wish to seriously consider this suggestion.

There is an important difference between the present situation and that at the time of Dryden: Transport Canada policy is now being dissected in public and in advance of legislative enactment. There is still room for positive change.

In the interests of the safety of the Canadian air-travelling public, I urge this committee to reject the proposed dismantling of the aviation regulatory oversight system as implicit under clause 12 of Bill C-6, which is already under way, and to prevail upon the federal government to provide adequate funding to Transport Canada to enable it to carry out its traditional regulatory oversight and enforcement functions parallel to the SMS initiative, and to meet its obligations under the ICAO convention and avoid the slippery slope to another Dryden.

Finally, I pose a question. Has the time perhaps now come for a system-wide inquiry to be held again in Canada to test the aviation system's vital signs? The widespread aviation safety alarms emanating from within the front lines of the aviation industry, as well as serious questions about the Bill C-6 clause 12 initiative, strongly suggest that indeed the time for such an inquiry has arrived. Eighteen years after the disaster at Dryden, now is the time for the federal government to assume a proactive approach to taking the pulse of aviation safety in this country, by establishing an aviation safety inquiry under the Inquiries Act to conduct an in-depth, system-wide check on the current state of commercial aviation's vital signs in Canada before another major air disaster occurs.

I submit, with respect, that this committee should consider recommending such an inquiry, and I thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 39.

Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Tuesday, November 7, 2006, we are examining Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Joining us today we have Mr. Virgil Moshansky. We welcome you today. Although we are short a couple of members, in order to deal with the time factor, I'd ask you to begin.

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

I want to pick up on Mr. Benson's last answer to Monsieur Laframboise.

I'm sorry that I don't have in front of me your testimony, and I look forward to reading all of your testimony. I'm not sure you've addressed it in any specific—You're talking about this box representing the necessity for safety and security, which I don't think anybody disagrees with. Your concern is that this box is not well built, as presented in Bill C-6, yet I think it would be useful if your apprehensions were a little more precise in terms of exactly where you would like to strengthen that box. Unless we have that, then we'll just be left with a vague sense of where you want us to go.

[Fred Jones]

These are addressed in our more detailed written submissions, but the protection that currently exists in Bill C-6 does not extend to proceedings under other acts or access by the courts to the voluntary reports, and there are certain areas where the minister may release the information that may be contained in voluntary reports.

We're concerned that these voluntary and non-punitive reports are at the very heart of the safety management system. They tap safety information that we've been unable to access through any other mechanism historically. The first time this information leaks—who made the voluntary report, what the contents of the report are—or the voluntary reporter is subpoenaed as a witness in the civil courts or for proceedings under another act, then we are concerned that some of the those voluntary reports will dry up and we will lose access to that safety information.

So we don't think the protection that exists in Bill C-6 is adequate currently.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for appearing.

Boy, listening to the New Democrat member earlier, I almost thought planes were falling out of the sky and the inspectors were getting pink slips.

Bill C-6 is not inventing SMS. I think we can establish that here. It has already been in play or in practice or in development. The bill is codifying it, and I think that allows us to probably assess a few things here.

We keep hearing a number of things. There's almost the suggestion that somehow regulations are going to disappear with SMS. Since we can test that hypothesis against some reality here, have any Transport Canada regulations disappeared yet? Do you know of any that have disappeared?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Benson, my time is really short. I have probably only a minute left.

I'm not disputing what you're saying. The problem is that Bill C-6 is not addressing occupational health and safety; it is addressing air safety.

I'm getting back to the focus here. Some of your brothers were here at the table earlier, two other unions, and it appeared that they were the only ones who were really opposed to Bill C-6. We've had a raft of witnesses, many of whom have as their sole focus the safety of air travel, and they're all supportive of this bill, subject to some minor amendments that we've heard here as well. The government, I believe, has indicated we're willing to continue dialogue on that.

When we're talking about your organization and the other two unions that were before us, clearly there is an issue of individuals fearing they might lose their jobs because of this, because of what you referred to as self-regulation. It certainly came out from the other witnesses.

[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.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

You can't blame Bill C-6 for that.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Hold it. Bill C-6 isn't even in place.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

There has been some suggestion that this is akin to either deregulation of the industry or a move to significant self-regulation. Transport Canada officials made it very clear that this is, in fact, not self-regulation, but a significant enhancement in safety. It's ensuring that companies take ownership of safety within their operations. In fact, the audit process that is being suggested by Bill C-6 is intended to make sure that at the end of the day we actually have an enhanced system.

This is not a move backwards. It's not even the status quo. At the end of the day, the intention is for there to be improved safety within the airline industry.

Have you received any indication that the number of inspectors is going to be reduced or that the audit process is going to be less rigorous than our overall inspection program is today? Do you have any evidence to that effect?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

It's my understanding that Bill C-6 is not whistle-blower protection, but it provides confidentiality and immunity to ensure that employees who come forward with the interests of safety in mind are not penalized for that.

I wanted to touch on something else, and that is—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

It was my understanding that the confidentiality provisions and the immunity provisions of Bill C-6 are intended to ensure that when there are problems within the industry, the people on the front lines—who in many cases are the ones who first receive notification or are made aware of those problems—have an opportunity to come forward without being penalized for that action. Is that how you understand Bill C-6?

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

Thank you for that.

Mr. Stoss, you said in your brief that the provisions of Bill C-6 related to safety management systems are also of interest to the TSB, principally because this new approach has the potential to significantly improve the early reporting and resolution of potential and actual safety deficiencies. Would you admit that it also has the potential to have some of the perverse impacts we've seen within the railway sector?

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

Okay. Thank you for that.

Moving on to the airline industry, you've been very clear that you believe there are some real risks and dangers in pushing ahead with a similar type of system for airlines. Is there anything within Bill C-6 that reassures you that we might not be seeing the same impact—inadvertent as you may say—that we've seen within the railway industry?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to each of the witnesses for coming forward, particularly to you, Mr. Wing. You've given by far the best presentation we've heard yet in terms of Bill C-6.

I wanted to start by asking if your union also represents railway workers.

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

Very well.

Looking at your report, I see that you deal with 150 to 200 cases per year. You make findings about those cases and, if you think that a decision was not made fairly, you tell the minister.

This is what the Dubin report had contemplated. However, where I see a problem is that some designated organizations—and I am referring here to ALPA, the Airline Pilots Association—have told us that with this Bill the traditional oversight function will be changed. As far as they are concerned, it is clear that the inspectors will not do the same work as in the past because the safety management system will have them work more as auditors than inspectors.

This is a concern to me because of the whole balanced system that had been recommended by Justice Dubin—I am trying to understand why some people are so intent on the changing the inspection system and I can't find any good reasons related to safety. As far as labor relations are concerned, since they are overseen by inspectors, I can understand why airline pilots would not like to be overseen by other pilots who are inspectors. I can see that there is a human relations issue here. However, for matters of safety, I fail to understand why the government wants to change the system.

I have no objection to adding a safety management system as long as we keep an inspection system that is as good as the one we have now, as well as inspectors who have received the same training and who are able to go anywhere to inspect the airlines.

It is difficult for me to accept that the inspection system should change. If that were to happen, would you have any concerns?

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

Under Bill C-6, you would lose that authority in that section, correct?

[Faye Smith]

If I understand the bill correctly, Bill C-6 will remove that with respect to section 7, which is a suspension for immediate threat. The one that is being changed is section 7. But there is a refer-back—

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

So it's a neutral perspective. Thank you.

Madam Smith, I have a couple of questions, if I may. My understanding is that currently the act, under which you have authority, allows the tribunal to substitute its own decisions for those of the minister. Bill C-6 would remove that authority. First of all, is my understanding accurate here?

[Nick Stoss]

Thank you very much for your question.

The current provisions of the CTAISB Act actually have provisions with regard to the Minister of National Defence conducting investigations. These amendments to Bill C-6 will not affect that provision within the CTAISB Act. Again, the concept of part II of the new Bill C-6 is to provide an enhanced capability to conduct investigations into those military accidents and incidents that involve civilians.

Because this particular provision in the act will not have any effect on the TSB's operations and investigations, I don't have an opinion with regard to the viability of the provisions of Bill C-6 in that regard.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first question is for Mr. Stoss. In your comments you highlighted the areas that Bill C-6 would cause to be changed. In most of them you indicate clear support—for instance, in the matter of the voluntary non-punitive reporting system and in the matter of the management systems and so forth. But in the first one you highlighted, that the act will provide the Department of National Defence with legislation and so forth, your view is perhaps not as clear.

Would you comment on whether you favour this particular amendment or if you have any reservations on this one?

[Michael Wing, National President, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to participate in the deliberations on Bill C-6, amendments to the Aeronautics Act.

As we all know, this bill has been around for quite a while, and Transport Canada has in effect been acting as if the legislation were already in place. If you sense a degree of frustration in my voice, you're probably reading me correctly.

The Union of Canadian Transportation Employees represents the vast majority of inspectors who are responsible for ensuring that Canada's airlines and airports are safe and the rules are obeyed. UCTE members are fulfilling the obligations of the government as embodied in the responsibilities of the Minister of Transport, as clearly articulated in the Aeronautics Act. In section 4.2 of the act, the responsibilities of the minister are clearly laid out in more than a page of dense print. Section 4.2 begins as follows:

The Minister is responsible for the development and regulation of aeronautics and the supervision of all matters connected with aeronautics

There are about 12 specific functions identified following these general obligations, but the two I would like to emphasize are to “investigate, examine and report on the operation and development of commercial air services in, to or from Canada”; and “investigate matters concerning aviation safety”.

So the minister clearly has the responsibility for regulation, supervision, investigation, and reporting of all aviation matters in Canada. UCTE members perform these functions and are accountable to the minister and the government for the discharge of these responsibilities.

The question I would ask, and that you as legislators must carefully consider, is whether the responsibilities of the minister are discharged appropriately and in the public interest through the designation process, through the management system delegation process, and through the disclosure and confidentiality waivers that are the cornerstones of Bill C-6 that you are considering here today.

We certainly do not believe that ministerial responsibilities can be exercised through approval of these provisions in Bill C-6. We believe that by approving these amendments the Crown is exposing itself and the public to unsafe aviation and air transportation outcomes. We believe that the minister cannot effectively discharge his or her obligations through the extent of delegation to the carrier community that is sanctioned in this bill.

AIl political parties in the House of Commons supported the Federal Accountability Act. We do not believe that the principles enunciated in the new Federal Accountability Act can be accommodated through the non-disclosure and Access to Information Act exemptions that are proposed to be provided to airlines and their associations through this bill.

How are the Federal Accountability Act principles protected and represented by a bill that permits airlines to keep a serious safety and security breach from being disclosed to the public? How can the public be assured that the minister is discharging his or her obligations when there is no accountability for that disclosure? Does this not fly in the face of the FAA and everything it stands for? Does this not fly in the face of the responsibilities of the minister and the government that are clearly articulated in the foundations of the Aeronautics Act itself?

It is a well-known fact that the whole plan being implemented through this legislation is really about saving the number of government inspectors and presumably saving money for Transport Canada in the process. It is also what we consider to be a substitute for a proper human resource and training plan for the aviation inspectorate, particularly in light of the demographics of the inspectorate community. Obviously, existing and future UCTE members are negatively affected by this approach, and our interests clearly conflict with those espoused in Bill C-6.

At the same time, we are not convinced that aviation and public safety are matters that belong on the government balance sheet, nor can safety be compromised at all, given the clear responsibilities of the government with regard to aviation safety.

We would go so far as to suggest that this approach has become a substitute for proper and judicious management of the inspectorate function. And don't just take my word for it. We would encourage you to seek out the informed views of experts such as retired Alberta Justice Virgil Moshansky, a man who has extensively studied the aviation safety and management system impacts following the 1989 Air Ontario Dryden crash and who has subsequently given public statements, speeches, and interviews since. Justice Moshansky has been widely quoted over the years, but I would direct you to a series of excellent articles in the Toronto Star from June of 2006. In one of those articles, the justice is quoted as follows:

I am skeptical whether 'partner relationships'...are in the best interests of aviation safety. It is possible if they get too cozy, they'll maybe let things slip by.

Justice Moshansky has always said that a healthy and independent inspectorate is essential to aviation safety. We couldn't agree more. UCTE and other organizations representing pilots and other airline workers have presented, and will present further to you on Bill C-6. There will be some consistency of views in these presentations.

Government officials and airlines will present a countervailing perspective. It is up to you, as legislators, to determine what is in the public interest, but I would ask you to consider the following recommendations in light of the public interest. Remember that we are talking about the safety of the public when they fly in airplanes in Canada. Remember that no amount of delegation of system management will replace ministerial and government responsibilities and accountability. The government is responsible and accountable, and that's the end of the story. So we'd ask you, please, to consider these recommendations in this light.

The government process of designating external organizations is being increasingly practised but usually in areas where the implications are not that great and where the entire functions are being transferred to an outside body and where that body has no responsibilities except for those quasi-judicial regulatory functions.

In this instance, however, the government is proposing to designate external organizations to monitor compliance with its own rules and standards when the organization may have conflicting roles and accountabilities. We fail to see how this is consistent and even allowed under the Statutory Instruments Act, but we would also say that it completely contravenes any standards of accountability that are now part of government policy and legislation. We would recommend removal of the “designated organization” sections of Bill C-6.

Accountability and responsibility absolutely require that inspection reports and safety violations be made public. We would recommend the removal of all provisions that permit non-disclosure of inspection reports and self-reported safety violations. This recommendation would apply to all permissive non-disclosure, including sections 5.392, management systems exemption; 5.393, data flight recorder exemption; and 5.395, voluntary reporting exemption.

Thirdly, if safety system management structures are to be encouraged and permitted, there must be a system of continuous improvement built into the entire accountability structure.

It is impossible to have a well-functioning and continuously improving system that does not have effective external checks and balances and redresses for those errors and omissions uncovered by the external checks and balances. In this respect, we would recommend that all inspection and self-reporting disclosures be available to the public and that whistle-blowing protections be introduced into the statute.

Employees of airlines and airports should have the inherent ability to report safety infractions to Transport Canada inspectors without fear of reprisals from their employers or its agents. Additionally, along as SMS structures are encouraged and permitted, there should be more independent safety audits subject to disclosure.

All these recommendations would combine and bring together a process that has a chance to continuously improve.

Finally, the Canada Labour Code provides for a series of important workers' rights that apply to all federally regulated institutions, including airlines. The code provides employee protections for unsafe working conditions and enshrines employees' right to know workplace hazards. For employees who work in the airline world, knowing their work environment is as safe as it can be is an important worker right.

The conflicts between the employee protections articulated in the code and the “designated organization” and “management systems” delegation proposals in Bill C-6 are very profound. We already are seeing the erosion of Canada Labour Code rights with SMS structures now in place. We believe that the primacy of the Canada Labour Code should be codified in Bill C-6 and the Aeronautics Act.

I hope that you find our positions and recommendations are in the public interest. That interest is to protect the travelling public in Canada and to exercise the responsibilities and authorities given to the government and the Minister of Transport in a responsible, transparent, and accountable manner. We believe our recommendations are entirely consistent with that principle, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

[Faye Smith, Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer, Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable members.

It's my pleasure to be here today to answer your questions on the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada. I'll give you what I hope is a brief overview of the tribunal.

The Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada is a quasi-judicial body established by reason of the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act. It replaces the Civil Aviation Tribunal which was established under Part IV of the Aeronautics Act following upon the recommendations of Mr. Justice Charles Dubin in his report into aviation safety.

The Dubin Report, published in 1982, includes three parts. To paraphrase Mr. Justice Dubin, he wanted to elevate the importance of aviation enforcement. His focus became the objective of the program to provide the aviation community with the opportunity to have the enforcement and licensing decisions of the Minister of Transport reviewed by an independent body.

By setting up a specialized quasi-judicial tribunal, the enforcement procedure was decriminalized, as is appropriate for contraventions relating to regulatory offences that are not totally criminal in nature. In its legislation, the Department of Transport reserves criminal court proceedings for the most serious offences. Hence, enforcement cases were removed from the criminal courts to the tribunal, and administrative monetary penalties ranged from $5,000 for breach of a regulation by an individual to $25,000 for a company. For the more serious enforcement cases, licence suspensions could be imposed by the minister.

I note that Bill C-6increases the maximum monetary penalties assessed against an individual to $50,000, and as against a company the proposed maximum is $250,000.

As mentioned, in addition to enforcement cases, licensing decisions made by the Minister of Transport may also come before the tribunal. These matters relate to qualifications to hold a variety of documents of entitlement, including matters of competence for medical or other reasons.

Prior to the setting up of the Tribunal on June 1, 1986, matters of qualifications to hold a pilot license or an air operator certificate were heard under the Air Regulations of that time.

A request for a review of the decision to suspend such a document was not heard by an independent body. Rather, the review procedure was conducted by someone in the Department of Transport, usually one level up from the person who originally sent the Notice of Suspension. Although there were many safeguards and guidelines built in such a system, the man on the street does not perceive it as a very independent review since it is done by the same Department.

That was the aim of Mr. Justice Dubin when he said that an independent tribunal composed of impartial members with subject matter expertise should be hearing these matters related to suspension.

The cases referred to above may include imposition of monetary penalties, or suspension, cancellation or refusal to renew, or refusal to issue or amend documents of entitlement on medical or other grounds. The person or corporation affected is referred to as the document holder.

The review and appeal hearings are held expeditiously and informally in accordance with the rules of fairness and natural justice, which involve the right of the individual or company to have a hearing before an unbiased and impartial hearing officer. At the conclusion of a hearing, the tribunal may confirm the minister's decision, substitute its own decision, or refer the matter back to the minister for reconsideration.

The basic principles governing the Tribunal are those of independence and expertise. The sound and competent execution of the Tribunal's mandate determines its effectiveness in dealing with the Canadian transportation community.

The tribunal's chairperson is also its chief executive officer, and the tribunal is responsible for the direction and supervision of the work necessary to facilitate the functions of the tribunal.

The part-time members are drawn from across Canada and are appointed by order in council on the basis of their knowledge and expertise. The office of the tribunal is located in the national capital region.

In enforcement matters, the hearing will normally be located where the incident took place. In medical cases, the hearings will be at the location that is nearest to the residence of the document holder.

In addition to the full- and part-time members—there are two full-time members—we have eight employees. That's our entire organization. Over the past 20 years, we have worked on an average of 250 to 300 cases per year, and approximately 60 to 80 of those go to a hearing. Many of the cases, obviously, get settled along the way.

Over the years, the practices and procedures of the tribunal were flexible and straightforward, and the tribunal became an example of government's best practices. It worked well over time because the tribunal took pains to keep its process simple and accessible to applicants, thereby providing effective recourse rights regarding certain administrative decisions.

The informal procedure and simplified rules allow the document holder to represent himself or herself without counsel, but representation by counsel is certainly permitted. Each applicant, upon filing a request with the tribunal, receives a copy of the guide to hearings. There are no user fees at the tribunal. We've been fortunate that we've been able to do that so far.

A review of the tribunal's operations reveals two things. The tribunal appears to be successful in disposing of the matters that have come before it in an expeditious fashion. It has certainly been more successful than the previous system, from an aviation perspective. It also appears that the very existence of the tribunal as a forum for review of enforcement and licensing decisions has, in and of itself, created an environment for the resolution of matters between the Department of Transport and those that it regulates—that is to say, we get the parties talking. This, alone, resolves many matters. Those that remain go to a hearing.

I thank you, and I await your questions.

[Nick Stoss, Acting Director General, Investigation Operations, Transportation Safety Board of Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon. On behalf of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities as it studies BillC-6, the proposed legislation to amend the Aeronautics Act.

TSB last appeared before the committee on Tuesday, June 13, 2006. On that occasion, I accompanied our chair, Mrs. Wendy Tadros. In our presentation we highlighted that the Transportation Safety Board, under the CTAISB Act, is mandated to advance marine, pipeline, rail, and air transportation by conducting independent investigations into selected accidents and incidents in order to make the findings as to causes and contributing factors. Also, we identify safety deficiencies and make recommendations designed to eliminate or reduce any such deficiencies. Finally, we report publicly.

We also highlighted the importance of TSB's independence from all other government departments. This independence is key to establishing public trust and confidence in our work.

Because this session of the committee is dedicated to Bill C-6, I offer the following from the TSB's perspective.

Under the provisions of Bill C-6, Transport Canada is the government department directly affected by the changes to the Aeronautics Act. Although the TSB's work is not governed by the Aeronautics Act, during its investigations the TSB does evaluate the circumstances of every occurrence against the provisions of the Aeronautics Act. In this regard, it would make findings as to compliance with the act and related enabled regulations and other documentation where appropriate.

The specific Bill C-6 amendments that have a potential to influence how we achieve our mandate are in the following areas.

First, part II of the act now will provide the Department of National Defence with the legislation necessary to conduct investigations in an almost identical manner to the TSB. However, the provisions will only apply to those investigations being conducted by DND and to military accidents and incidents involving civilians.

Second, the provisions in part I will govern the establishment of a voluntary, non-punitive reporting system. This concept of a confidential, non-punitive system should have a positive influence on the reporting of unsafe situations in the aviation transportation sector. Although TSB has a confidential reporting system called SECURITAS, the TSB system does not incorporate a non-punitive element. The TSB currently participates in a working group with Transport Canada and industry to develop this new system.

Thirdly, the provisions of Bill C-6 related to the safety management systems are also of interest to the TSB, principally because this new approach has potential to significantly improve the early reporting and early resolution of potential and actual safety deficiencies.

Bill C-6 also provides the legislation related to the protection of information collected by the safety management systems. This factor has significant potential to ensure the quality of the information being reported and analyzed.

This concludes my opening remarks. I would be pleased to respond to your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 36. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, November 7, 2006, we have Bill C-6, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Joining us today, from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, is Nick Stoss; from the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada, Faye Smith; and from the Union of Canadian Transportation Employees, Michael Wing and Michael Teeter.

Welcome. I'm not sure if you have made any arrangements as to an order of presentation. Is there someone who would like to take it first?

Mr. Stoss, you have seven minutes.

[David Jeanes]

I think, Mr. Bélanger, the regulation of the insurance industry is far too complicated a matter. I can think of analogues in completely different areas; you know, there are churches that are having trouble getting insurance to cover some of their normal activities. So it's not just airlines that have that problem. Certainly the consequences of 9/11 changed many things relative to the aviation industry, and I don't think those are really the matters that are being considered in these revisions to Bill C-6 at this point.

We do think it's very important that the public understand what's going on. For example, if it's the case that the airlines really are unable to obtain appropriate insurance, then that's a serious safety issue that the public should be aware of in making their travel decisions, or in fact in making representations to government about what they want government to do about such a situation. But I don't think it's directly part of these amendments.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the witnesses for coming forward today.

It's very important. This is a bill that has significant ramifications, as we're all aware, and certainly on this side of the committee table we want to make sure we do our complete and due diligence at every single step.

I'd like to follow up on Monsieur Laframboise's comments and refer to Transport Canada testimony that we heard on Monday. This committee was told on Monday that with Bill C-6, we would be in full compliance with international standards under ICAO, and that indeed Canada is in full compliance with international standards within the ICAO.

I wanted to ask you what the current ICAO standards are for pilot proficiency checks, and how often do those need to be undertaken?

[David Jeanes, President, Transport 2000 Canada]

I am.

Thank you, Mr. Tweed.

First of all, I would say that we are appearing here on very short notice of only a day or so. We don't have a written brief. Unfortunately, I could not be joined this afternoon by my colleague Gerry Einarsson, who is our expert on air safety matters, but I have been extensively consulting with him over the past two days. I hope the verbal presentation I make today will be useful to you.

You may normally think of Transport 2000 as a consumer organization that is primarily concerned with urban transit and railway matters. We last appeared before you in October of last year to discuss matters relating to rail travel. But we have been strongly concerned, mainly from the consumer perspective, about air transportation for quite a number of years. In fact, we appeared before this committee back in November 1999, as part of a coalition of nine different consumer organizations that were very concerned about consumer issues arising from the merger of Air Canada and Canadian Airlines.

At that time, one of the organizations that joined that coalition, along with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and others, was the Air Passenger Safety Group, which was a group of people with strong expertise in the air industry who were particularly concerned about safety matters. That group subsequently became an affiliate of Transport 2000, and with their expertise over the subsequent seven or eight years, we have been quite heavily involved in airline-related matters. In fact, we're often called on directly by the national media for comment, particularly when there is an air safety issue, when there is a major air incident. We do believe that we try to provide an informed and balanced comment that is useful, in the public interest, and helpful to people when it comes to understanding the circumstances surrounding various incidents.

One good example of this was the crash and burning of the Air France flight at Pearson Airport, where we were quite extensively involved. We were actually told by representatives of the Transportation Safety Board that they had found the interviews we were giving to the media to be quite to the point and appropriate. So that's just some background.

We do also participate quite actively, in a consultative way, with various groups in the administration of the aviation industry, with Transport Canada, and with airline organizations—for example, in CARAC, the Canadian Aviation Regulatory Advisory Committee.

When it comes to Bill C-6, we strongly support the principles of the amendments as they are identified here. Matters such as aircraft emission regulations and the ability of the minister to make emission regulations relate quite closely to our commitment to sustainable transportation and to transportation that benefits the environment.

I'll talk a bit more, but we are quite concerned about the ability of the minister to handle fatigue countermeasures. Whistle-blower provisions are crucially important.

The whole area of SMS and provisions for more self-regulation by the industry is a matter on which we certainly understand the economic importance, but we feel it has to be balanced with a concern not only for absolute safety—which is, of course, always a matter of concern for Transport Canada—but also for public perception. It is in the interests of the industry itself that the public perceives that air travel continues to have the very high safety standards and safety record it is well-known for. In fact, we believe this relates to improved consumer choice.

You can talk as much as you like about a free market, but a free market implies that consumers have the knowledge to make the choices within that marketplace, and knowledge of the safety measures, and even the safety records, of the air carriers is an important part of that informed consumer choice.

I know I have to try to be brief here, but with respect to SMS, we do believe it is essential for the department to continue to have enough resources to do the monitoring, surveillance, and evaluation of the safety programs. In other countries we've had too many examples of where responsibility for safety and maintenance has been devolved. A very bad example occurred in Britain, where maintenance of the railways was devolved entirely to the private sector and resulted in a large number of severe and multiple-fatality accidents. They needed to practically shut down the entire national rail network after one particular incident resulting from the maintenance decisions under a self-regulation environment. There was a subsequent need for the government to re-nationalize both railway infrastructure and railway maintenance after they had been privatized.

It is very important that as you introduce these SMS programs and self-regulatory regimes you retain the ability in government to understand how well it's working, because once it fails, it's very expensive and complicated and difficult for all concerned to rectify the problems and to take it back.

Public oversight is absolutely essential. There have been many incidents that could have been prevented if this kind of whistle-blower protection had existed. As a specific example, I can go back as far as the Dryden crash in 1989, which was a de-icing matter, where it was clearly established that had employees been able to speak without fear of reprisal, the 24 deaths in that accident could have been avoided. We learned from that, and in fact de-icing procedures worldwide have improved as a result of what we learned from those fatalities, but in fact the fatalities might have been unnecessary if whistle-blowing protection was available.

It's not a Canadian situation, but an Alaska Airlines crash that happened in January of 2000 again was a case where known maintenance issues had been suppressed because there was no protection for the employees who could have provided that information. The plane crashed due to failure of its tail assembly, and the 88 fatalities that resulted could have been avoided.

We understand that this legislation is being dealt with against the background of diminishing and decreasing resources at Transport Canada, and although that may be a reality, and there may be great difficulty as experienced inspectors retire and so on--difficulty in replacing them--that by itself isn't an excuse for downgrading the level of safety in the industry. If the resources are required for safety, they must somehow be found.

Finally, we found some very good remarks, which I hope the members of this committee will have read or be aware of--and if you aren't, then I recommend them to you--in the remarks made by Justice Moshansky last November. He did the original investigation of the Dryden crash in 1989. He made a speech in November that was still quite concerned about the state of the management of aviation safety in Canada, about lessons that had been learned but had not necessarily led to improvements being made. Particularly, he had strong remarks related to the problems of inadequate supply of inspection capability--inspectors at Transport Canada.

Yes, it is appropriate to improve the act along the lines that are requested here and to devolve in a way that maintains safety and Transport Canada's ability to monitor the adequacy of safety mechanisms, but also in a way that will ensure that the public continues to have confidence in the safety of the airline system and can make informed choices.

Thank you.

[Capt Dan Adamus, President, Canada Board, Air Line Pilots Association]

Thank you, Mr. Tweed, and good afternoon, members of the transport committee.

I'm Captain Dan Adamus, and I'm here representing the Air Line Pilots Association, International, or what we refer to as ALPA. I'm ALPA's Canada Board president and a pilot with Air Canada Jazz.

With me today is Art LaFlamme, ALPA's senior staff representative in Canada. We appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to express our views on Bill C-6.

The Air Line Pilots Association, International, represents more than 60,000 pilots who fly for forty airlines in Canada and the United States. Both as our members' certified bargaining agent and as their representative in all areas affecting their safety and professional well-being, ALPA is the principal spokesperson for airline pilots in North America. ALPA therefore has a significant interest in any legislation affecting aviation here in Canada.

ALPA supports this legislation, in particular the provisions to permit the effective implementation of safety management systems, known as SMS, in aviation companies regulated and certified by Transport Canada. ALPA has embraced SMS as the next great leap forward in advancing aviation safety. We see it as a comprehensive corporate approach to safety that involves both management and employees in the development and implementation of a company's SMS.

You may ask why ALPA is so strongly supportive of SMS and this legislation. We are for many reasons. It clearly establishes accountability for safety at the highest levels within a company. It provides for the reporting of safety occurrences and information without fear of retribution. It requires employee involvement and a formal risk assessment and decision-making process, to name but a few things.

ALPA views SMS as an umbrella framework over the existing safety regulations. Under SMS, no longer will a company be able to ignore a safety issue by saying they are regulatorily compliant. If a safety hazard is known or has been identified, a company is required to do a risk assessment and make a conscious decision on what mitigations are required to deal with it.

SMS clearly establishes responsibility for safety where it belongs: the aviation industry. It is the minister's responsibility to provide comprehensive and effective oversight and to take the appropriate measures where that responsibility has not been fulfilled. The traditional method of safety oversight based on detailed technical inspections can take on the role of operational safety assurance, and the aviation industry can lapse into thinking and believing that safety is the government's responsibility. ALPA believes this legislation clearly establishes where the responsibility and accountability for safety lies, and it provides all the powers required for the minister to take appropriate measures when required.

ALPA has not only accepted SMS in Canada, it has adopted it in the U.S. as the way forward. ALPA has been actively advocating it to the Federal Aviation Administration, the FAA, and with those airlines whose pilots are represented by ALPA. In fact, ALPA has been instrumental in achieving FAA buy-in to SMS, resulting in the FAA flight standards division issuing an advisory circular with standards for those airlines wishing to implement SMS.

As you are probably aware, the International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO, has adopted SMS, and it will become an international standard in 2009. In that regard, the International Federation of Air Line Pilots Association, IFALPA—of which we were a founding member—has worked closely with ICAO in establishing the ICAO standards and recommended practices and strongly supports this international initiative.

We understand the expressions of concern that have been made regarding the protection from punishment and for the confidentiality provided for in the draft legislation. We believe these provisions are absolutely essential to the success of a company's SMS.

We can explain our position as follows. To proactively address safety issues, data is required. Strategies to enhance safety need to be data-driven. In the absence of accidents, the right kind of data is required. Human and organizational factors create errors or hazards that largely remain undetected until the right set of circumstances result in a bad occurrence. An organizational climate where people feel free from negative consequences when reporting errors, deficiencies, and hazards is essential to obtaining all the data that is available. Therefore, a reporting program must provide confidentiality and immunity from discipline to be effective. Of course, exceptions would be a wilful or deliberate offence, gross negligence, or a criminal act.

In summary, ALPA believes a voluntary, confidential, and non-punitive reporting program is an essential element of an SMS and this legislation.

ALPA would like to comment on one other provision of this draft legislation, and that's clause 12, the power of the minister to designate organizations to act on the minister's behalf in certain areas. ALPA is of the strong view that this designation power must not be granted for commercial passenger and cargo operations. We note that the legislative language is quite broad, subject to regulations on which stakeholders are to be consulted, through the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council, or CARAC. We have been advised by Transport Canada officials that this provision is meant to address only low-risk, non-air-transport areas of the aviation industry. We recommend that the committee obtain, for the record, such an undertaking from the minister.

We thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you, and we would be glad to take any questions you may have.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Welcome, and good afternoon, everyone. This is the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 35, 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 we have, from Transport 2000, Mr. David Jeanes, and from the Air Line Pilots Association, Dan Adamus and Art LaFlamme. We appreciate your coming out on a blustery day. I know there's been some discussion, but I think we'll start with the Air Line Pilots Association and give Mr. Jeanes a chance to get himself set up and organized.

Traditionally we give you about seven minutes to pitch, and then we'll go around the table and ask you some questions, if that's okay.

Please begin.

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

I have no first-hand knowledge, but I understand that the witnesses who were coming forward on Wednesday had no problem with the issue that we discussed and the result of it. My understanding is that they were still coming at that time.

I do want to make mention of two things, though. The notice of motion that was put forward, I believe, if you read it, dealt only with the issue of remailers. The discussion we had also affected the rural mail, and we wanted some answers on rural mail as well. So I would say that the original motion didn't talk about rural mail; it just talked about remailers.

Also, to be fair to Ms. Greene, I've asked for her to be in attendance, including the committees, three or four times now, and she has always made time to see me, even about other caucus members' questions, from all parties.

She has a huge corporation of 70,000 employees to run. I'm sure that if she's asking to be excused from the committee, she has other business to attend to that must be of some sort of urgent nature. I would suggest at this time, and, quite frankly, we passed that motion fairly strongly, all of us did, and I think the reality is, let's get on to other business.

We have Bill C-6. I don't think the remailer issue is a major one at this time. Rural mail is an issue, but they have a directive. I did have a briefing from Canada Post on that particular directive and what they were doing, so they were going to come forward and report to us what they were going to do on rural mail as well as remailers. I think the directive is up in another 30 or 40 days. I don't think there's any rush in relation to that particular issue.

But certainly, we—and I think Ms. Greene—are open to another date.

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

Quite frankly, we have the same concerns from this side, especially having heard the newspaper reports and heard about other situations that were taking place.

This is a two-part motion, and I'd like to speak to both parts. I think both are important, but we have to look at the business reality involved with them.

Mr. Julian, just to confirm, I've never said that you give long speeches; I've just said that you filibuster things in order to not have to deal with things such as Bill C-6, which is of course coming before us. I've heard rumours that you want to put it off and put off the work of the committee, which bothers me with motions such as this.

The first part of the inquiry deals with the failure of the security system, which is under investigation, as you know. The minister launched an investigation immediately thereafter. The department will not comment on particular investigations that are still ongoing, and that's the situation there.

I have received an undertaking from the department that as soon as the investigation is finished they will notify me, and I am to notify the committee immediately, and at that time they can comment on it. That's the first part.

The second part of this particular motion deals with a private company. Garda is a private company, and CATSA will not comment specifically on contracts between them and why they make purchasing or management decisions as to why they assign or do not renew contracts or renew contracts. I don't see how we can compel them to do so, but certainly I would suggest a private corporation should not be obligated to do so, especially in a situation where it's bidding on contracts.

In summary, we can't support the motion as it is, but certainly if the committee wants notice of when it's finished, I have received affirmation from the department that they will notify me, and I am to immediately notify the committee, and then we can get cooperation from the department to provide information. But as past ministers know—we have two here—they cannot comment on ongoing investigations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone. This is meeting number 33 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. You have the orders of the day.

We have a notice of motion from Mr. Julian, and then I suggest to the committee that we might go in camera to discuss the results of the subcommittee meeting of earlier this week, and also to review the witness list that we've prepared and talked about on Bill C-6.

At the subcommittee meeting we talked about Mr. Julian's motion and allocated 30 minutes for it. I would defer to Mr. Julian and ask him to bring it forward.

Aeronautics Act

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Once again, I think that if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just previously taken to the motion presently before the House on government Bill C-6, with Conservative members present voting yes.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-6.

The House resumed 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.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues today in speaking in opposition to Bill C-6.

As others have said earlier, the bill constitutes an extensive rewriting of the Aeronautics Act. It is a bill that was introduced by the previous government but had not been passed into law. Nevertheless, key pieces of this proposed legislation had been put in place under the direction of the former transport minister. We believe that these changes should be dealt with in Parliament by members elected to consider new legislation.

The issues dealt with in Bill C-6, which would amend the Aeronautics Act, are very broad: a new purpose clause; new safety management systems; immunity from prosecution for airlines that violate safety rules under certain conditions; heightened secrecy and less access to information on the safety performance of airlines; designation of private industry bodies to self-regulate their safety activities; new employee reporting procedures for hazards and risks; revamped enforcement mechanisms; new levels of fines; new administrative penalties; new airport zoning and land use rules; new procedures for investigations; permission for the operation of fractional ownership aircraft in Canada; abuse of exemptions procedure; changes to the procedures for review of ministerial decisions and actions; and a host of technical issues are dealt with in the bill.

We have identified, through our analysis, a number of problems with Bill C-6 in some key areas that I will now review. The first area concerns the safety management systems. This seeks to give authority to the governor in council to establish and implement management systems, better known as safety management systems or SMS. This is the heart of the change to the Aeronautics Act that will affect the safety of the travelling public and of crew members.

A number of airline crew members who live in my riding have contacted me in the past out of concern, for example, about increasing the ratio of crew members to passengers. They are concerned with their own safety and the public welfare, as they are trained to be.

We know that the SMS process is well underway, quarterbacked by Transport Canada's director general of Civil Aviation. Some of these regulations have already been passed by the Canada Gazette. They were then exempted the same day by Transport Canada officials and replaced with a three year implementation plan for safety management systems, even before Parliament had the opportunity to debate, much less approve, this new enabling legislation. They are now near the end of the first year of the SMS implementation.

What is this new system? It is supposed to be a management system that allows air operators to improve their safety levels by building on existing safety regulations. While Transport Canada insists that SMS is not a deregulation of safety, that is precisely what it is in two ways. First, it is a new role for the regulator with increased delegation of previously performed Transport Canada duties to the airlines themselves. We are talking about self-regulation as opposed to government regulation. It is a transfer of the determination of appropriate “risk levels” from Transport Canada to the airlines or from the public interest to a determination in the interests of private shareholders.

Transport Canada embraced SMS as a result of anticipated budget cuts even before the May 2 budget. Transport Canada officials have openly stated that the current safety framework is not sustainable due to a lack of technical personnel in the industry in the future.

Given the anticipated rate of inspector retirements, which is at the rate of about 40% over the next five years, this will mean a shortage of qualified personnel to oversee the current system.

Budget constraints are expected to continue for the foreseeable future in an era of what is called fewer regulatory resources. These resources are the inspectors enforcing the regulations that determine the safety of the travelling public, not to mention the crew members working in the industry.

Internal budget documents indicate flatline resources for Transport Canada aviation for the next two years, with a more than 5% cut beginning in 2008. However, Transport Canada has refused to provide internal documents to one of the unions involved, CUPE.

SMS is Transport Canada's way to cut its coat to fit a quite limited financial cloth. As a result, there will be a shifting relationship between airlines and Transport Canada. An assistant deputy manager for safety and security was quoted in an aviation magazine saying:

There must (be) a willingness on the part of the regulator to step back from involvement in the day-to-day activities of the company in favour of allowing organizations to manage their activities and related hazards and risks themselves.

This was done through SMS regulations, where the determination of the level of safety has been explicitly transferred to the air operators who will decide how to manage the risks, including the level of risk they are willing to accept in their operations and impose on air travellers and their employees. Under SMS, it will be the airlines that decide safety levels for the traveling public.

The head of Air Canada will now be safeguarding the public interest. Air Canada's bottom line will be the factor in setting safety levels for that airline. Transport Canada staff admitted, as late as last December, that such a redefinition of the role of the minister raises legal questions about the government's responsibility and liability for future system failures. It is also a naive and dangerous change in the relationship between Transport Canada and the airline industry.

Maintaining adequate safety costs money and the public counts on government regulations and the enforcement of those regulations to ensure their safety. However, SMS will foster a tendency to cut corners in the name of efficiencies in a very competitive aviation market wracked by high fuel prices. Today wine bottles are being abandoned to lessen aircraft weight and save a few litres of very expensive jet fuel.

What will happen to safety when the need to save money and make profits is paramount? Leaving enlightened business to manage themselves properly will not mean that safety will take care of itself. How will the public interest be protected under SMS? If anything, there will be increased reliance on time-consuming and costly lawsuits to deal with inevitable system failures initiated by the victims of surviving families of these breakdowns. We simply cannot let this happen.

Transport Canada officials have candidly admitted that some U.S. federal aviation administration officials have said that Canadians are giving away the store with SMS.

I would like to say a few words now about the delegation of rules-setting to private bodies. This is found in the bill's clause 12, specifically the new proposed subsections 5.31 through 5.38. SMS is supposed to enhance aviation safety because it builds on a robust set of minimum standards set by Transport Canada in the public interest.

In its various public and private statements, Transport Canada has been evasive on the future of the level of basic regulation it will maintain in the future. However, actions speak louder than words. Transport Canada has already transferred the actual operation of its regulatory regime entirely to the private sector for certain classes of air operators. It has done so even though new proposed subsection 5.31 of clause 12 of this bill has yet to be passed authorizing such a delegation to organizations. This transfer occurred for business aircraft in March 2005. Who is next?

Transport Canada is now openly speaking about doing the same for commercial operators, most recently at the Canadian aviation safety seminar in Halifax last April. The foxes will be running their own hen houses and it is up to us as parliamentarians to represent the public interest, the interest of Canadians and blow the whistle on this. We cannot let this happen.

We know the government has a very narrow view of the rule of government but we cannot play around with the safety of the travelling public.

The concept of management systems is not defined in Bill C-6. Rather, the key definitions of safety management systems and accountable executives and the basic elements of SMS are confined entirely to the already enacted regulations. While safety management systems exist already in Canada in railway security, Nav Canada and in other countries, not all SMS are created equal.

Key deficiencies in the current aviation version of safety management systems include: under intense industry pressure, the personal liability of the accountable industry for the proper functioning of the SMS has not been added to the Aeronautics Act; the definition of SMS contains only a vague purpose, which is “to ensure aviation safety or the safety of the public”, rather than a specific and achievable performance objective, such as, to reduce risks to the lowest level reasonably practicable; an emphasis on managing risks, rather than eliminating, controlling or minimizing them; the absence of clear and measurable requirements for continuous improvement in the SMS itself; the disappearance of a promised regulatory provision to ensure the effective involvement of employees and their unions in the development, implementation and operation of SMS; established minimum elements to be part of SMS's safety policy, including adherence to minimum legal and regulatory requirements; and, poorly defined risk matrices that have more to do with technical engineering standards than human failures of the costs of human injury.

The biggest failing of Transport Canada's SMS is that it has not been empirically validated against the actual track records of similar SMS where they have performed poorly, failed or missed their objectives.

I would like to speak briefly about the encroachment of SMS on part II of the Canada Labour Code, which addresses occupational health and safety for workers in the federal jurisdiction.

As “notwithstanding any other act of Parliament” legislation, part II of the code has exclusive authority to deal with occupational health and safety for these workers.

Flight attendants and pilots were added to the scope of part II in 1986 as an aviation extended jurisdiction shared between Transport Canada and the labour program of what is now HRSDC. Part II of the code provides a series of important rights. It provides the right for working people to know workplace hazards. It has a hierarchy of proactive measures to deal with such hazards, such as, eliminate, control, minimize and self-protect. It gives workers the right to refuse unsafe work and the right to participate, including in joint employee-employer investigations and inspections.

The introduction of SMS has emboldened employers to try to turn the clock back before 1986 for flight attendants. Safety data available by law to joint occupational health and safety committees are now being routinely denied by air operators as part of the new SMS confidentiality mentality.

Employee occupational health and safety representatives are being excluded routinely from legally mandated joint occupational health and safety investigations in favour of management only SMS investigations. Managers are applying risk indices to determine if corrective action should be taken on health and safety issues contrary to the precautionary principle found in sections 122.1 and 122.2 of the Canada Labour Code.

Air operators such as Air Canada and Air Transat are openly disregarding a joint Transport Canada-HRSDC interpretation document on SMS by integrating health and safety committees into their new SMS programs with the resulting denigration of employee rights.

Transport Canada inspectors, who enforce health and safety under a memorandum of understanding with HRSDC, have limited ability to enforce code rights when their senior managers have overwhelmingly embraced SMS. SMS must be carefully circumscribed within the Aeronautics Act, so that it does not subsume, impact or denigrate other existing rights provided under part II of the code.

There are new, very complex but distinct levels of confidential reporting associated with immunity provisions or protection from reprisals in Bill C-6 and promulgated under SMS regulations. There are three levels of such reporting and immunity. At the air operator level, the SMS regulations call for employers to implement a non-punitive safety reporting policy that requires employees to voluntarily report safety hazards and other problems to air operators. The conditions under which protection from discipline is available to employees can be imposed by the air operator or possibly negotiated with the union.

At the level of Transport Canada, proposed new subsection 5.392(1) stipulates that safety information from an air operator or its employees that comes into the minister's possession will be confidential. It can only be provided to the courts if it is de-identified or if the air operator is about to be shut down. This proposed new section adds that this information, including self-reporting contraventions of the law and regulations, cannot be used against the provider of the information to impose any penalties. Such information will also be beyond the reach of the Access to Information Act.

At a national level a new section would allow a person, conceivably employees or air operators, to report safety information and violations of the law and regulations without fear of reprisal subject to specified limitations on immunity in another new section by a yet to be created national safety body. This information will also become a mandatory exclusion from the Access to Information Act and be held in confidence.

The premise of these changes is that air operator employees may be reluctant to report their mistakes if they fear reprisals from their employers or Transport Canada, but these legislative changes go far beyond this, making all safety information now confidential. This new culture of secrecy has already limited the operation of joint occupational health and safety committees under part II of the code.

The minister's April 27 news release describes these amendments as allowing individuals and operators to confidentially report, on a voluntary basis, less safety critical regulatory violations, but clearly, there is a real concern that this will give the operators a get out of jail free card for self-reported violations of the law or regulations to Transport Canada with no enforcement taken on the self-reported regulations.

In summary, my concern is that this bill would mean more secrecy and would be a threat to the safety of the Canadian travelling public. It would provide operators working in the industry less access to information and action about the hazards that they are facing. I do not believe that this is in the best interests of either people who work in the industry or the travelling public. I urge hon. members to oppose this bill.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, being members of Parliament, there is legislation plus there is regulation involved in most bills that come forward. If there have been some regulatory changes, they would have been made under the guidance of overriding legislation.

On the issue of parliamentary oversight, we take very seriously the safety of Canadians as they travel back and forth across Canada and around the world. Whether it is a service provided by a private sector or through the public, there is legislation that governs the regulation, that provides the incentive to improve the system is how a lot of the system works.

The fact that we are today debating a bill dealing with aeronautical safety proves my point. The government is aware of the issues that are there. We realize some of it is dealt through regulation, some through legislation. The process that we are going through today on Bill C-6 is the legal aspect of preparing legislation that will govern the industry.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that my intervention today is concerned with issues facing the air force and our military personnel. I am not aware of the issues that CUPE might have brought forward. However, I indicated in my presentation that one of the gaps we found was that some of this work was being performed by contractors. Possibly this is a concern that some have as far as unions and such go.

Overall, whether it is interventions by CUPE or the other organizations that have put forward the recommendations and suggestions to the government, the end focus of the bill is to improve the safety of our airline industry and our aircraft in general.

I will take the point the member makes that there were interventions from many sources to deal with many angles of the industry. However, the scope of Bill C-6 is to ultimately make our industry safer for all Canadians, not only our people in the air force and in our national defence and military.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise of his question. I believe the amendments put forward in this act, whether civilian or military, to do with aeronautic safety will make things safer.

As I have outlined in my presentation, through the evolution of the aircraft industry and the growth of aircraft operations in the world, we have had to adjust as government to this reality. I believe the process and the evolution of these programs over a period of time has helped to create safety in the aircraft industry and aeronautics in general.

The member's question is somewhat misplaced, if we look at the record. Over the period of time, and if we go back for 60 years and more forward, we have seen marked improvement in aeronautic safety.

I believe Bill C-6 would fill some gaps, allowing further safety measures to be implemented. I look forward to the bill being put into law because the safety of all Canadians, not only our military personnel as I indicated in my presentation, is critical to this government.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little baffled. How can he possibly feel that added immunity from prosecution for airlines that violate certain safety rules under certain conditions, or heightened secrecy with less access to the information on the safety and performance of airlines, which have been endemic in Bill S-33, Bill C-62 and now in Bill C-6, make airlines safer?

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak on this subject.

The proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act will help to improve the safety of Canada's military aviation system. In order to fully appreciate the need for the proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act, a brief explanation of this flight safety program would be beneficial.

Unfortunately, aircraft accidents have been part of aviation since its inception. This was highlighted during the first world war. In the Canadian air training system alone, there were 56 accidents involving 48 fatalities between April 1917 and May 1918. In those days, flight safety was a secondary consideration. The prime focus of the organization was to complete the mission at all costs.

This attitude prevailed during the interwar years and the early stages of World War II, but as the war progressed, the air force determined that aircraft losses due to accidents equalled or exceeded operational losses. It became obvious that Canada could not continue to sustain this high accident rate and that some standards and measures of safety had to be created. Accordingly, in 1942 the Royal Canadian Air Force Aircraft Accident Investigation Board was formed.

It is interesting for me to speak in the House on this subject. During the war, my dad was in the air force and was stationed in southern Alberta. Southern Alberta is one of the areas that pilots trained in because the terrain was very similar to that of France, so these air force training facilities are scattered throughout southern Alberta. My dad was on the force that recovered and salvaged damaged airplanes. The one comment I remember him making was that he was surprised we were able to have any planes at all in theatre, what with the number of planes being damaged here in Canada.

One of the prized possessions I have in my home is the centre part of a propeller off one of these airplanes. I believe it was an Anson. It is just the centre part because the blades were broken off and buried in the ground. I have the brass bolts that held the propeller on and just the centre part. I prize it very much. However, for me to be speaking on aircraft safety some 60 years later and referring to what happened during the war is possibly more than just ironic.

The mandate of this board was to reduce non-operational losses through the investigation of aircraft accidents. That was a very tall order. Unfortunately, not much progress was made in accident prevention prior to the end of the war.

During demobilization following the second world war, the Aircraft Accident Investigation Board was downsized and eventually, in the early 1950s, renamed the Directorate of Flight Safety. This small directorate was overwhelmed by the rapid expansion of the Royal Canadian Air Force in the early 1950s as a result of the Korean conflict and the cold war.

Once again the concept of flight safety apparently took a back seat to completing the mission, as the air force suffered 405 fatalities and lost 476 aircraft in accidents between 1953 and 1957. This loss rate could not be sustained, so in 1957 the chief of the air staff directed that the development of an effective flight safety program receive the highest priority.

One of the first steps taken was to employ carefully selected pilots and engineers with specialized training for the investigation of aircraft accidents. The mandate of these investigators was to find the true cause of accidents so that effective corrective measures could be identified and implemented. Accident investigators were no longer required to assign blame.

Over the next 10 years, this new approach to flight safety resulted in a gradual reduction in the losses of both personnel and aircraft. By the early 1970s, a formal comprehensive flight safety program was developed and the Manual of Flight Safety for the Canadian Forces was published.

The objective of the flight safety program continues to be the prevention of the accidental loss of aviation resources. Today, this program consists of three basic elements: analysis, education and promotion. Let me explain each of these.

The first, analysis, involves the investigation of aircraft occurrences and the analysis of information derived from those investigations. The program is designed to foster a culture of free and open reporting as well as voluntary acknowledgement of errors and omissions.

All personnel associated with air operations are encouraged to report all hazards and potential hazards to the safety of the operation. This includes the reporting of occurrences where there were no injuries to personnel and no damage to equipment, but there was potential for loss.

In the current system, each flight safety occurrence is recorded and, if necessary, investigated. The occurrence information is also entered into a database of the flight safety occurrence management system for analysis. Approximately 2,500 to 3,000 occurrences are recorded annually in this database.

In order to foster voluntary reporting, a long-standing policy of treating information provided to the flight safety system as privileged has been in place. This means that the information provided by personnel to the flight safety program would not be used for administrative, disciplinary or legal purposes.

This is a critical component of the Canadian Forces flight safety program. By not assigning blame, personnel are encouraged to admit their mistakes, allowing others to learn from their mistakes. This gives investigators a much better opportunity to determine what exactly happened during an occurrence, since there is no need to hide anything.

The second element, education, involves the formal training of flight safety specialists. These specialists are then employed as flight safety advisers to commanders at various levels in the chain of command. These advisers work directly for the commander and have direct access to the commander on flight safety matters.

The third element, promotion, involves raising awareness of the flight safety program with the military and civilian personnel who conduct or support flying operations in training. This is done through a system of regular briefings, posters and pamphlets, such as Flight Comment, an illustrative flight safety magazine that is published four times a year and distributed to all Canadian Forces units. A testament to the quality of this magazine is that over 40 countries have requested that they regularly be provided with copies of this publication.

Over the years, our military personnel have grown to trust the flight safety program and it has now become part of the air force culture. This program is very effective and has gained a reputation as one of the best in the world.

The military flight safety program is administered by a network of trained flight safety specialists who are an integral part of each flying unit, as well as each unit involved in the support of aircraft operations.

Unit flight safety staff are assisted by wing flight safety personnel, who are normally employed full time in running the wing flight safety program. A full time staff of six personnel supports the flight safety program of the Commander of the 1 Canadian Air Division in Winnipeg, Manitoba. This staff is also responsible for conducting the basic and advanced flight safety courses that are used to train flight safety specialists. The 1 Canadian Air Division flight safety staff also regularly conducts flight safety surveys at the wings and units.

At National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa, the director of flight safety has a staff of 21 personnel who administer the flight safety program on behalf of the Chief of the Air Staff. Their activities include the oversight of the flight safety promotions program, the management of the flight safety occurrence database and associated software, and the analysis of trends and the information contained in the database.

The director of flight safety is also the Airworthiness Investigative Authority for the Minister of National Defence. As such, 12 members of his staff receive specialized aircraft accident investigator training from accredited international accident investigation training establishments. This training is exactly the same as that undertaken by the Transportation Safety Board air accident investigators and other aviation investigation organizations.

These military investigators are responsible for preparing the final reports on all investigations for the Airworthiness Investigative Authority's approval.

Canada has a robust military flight safety program, however, circumstances change and the Canadian Forces flight safety program must continue to evolve.

Bill C-6 would help the Canadian Forces adapt to a recent change, including the involvement of far more civilian contractors in the conduct and support of air operations. This change has resulted in a gap in the current authorities for Canadian Forces flight safety investigators when they are dealing with civilian contractors. As the minister noted, Bill C-6 would close this gap.

In order to allow the Canadian flight safety program to continue to meet its objective of maintaining a safe workplace for our military and civilian personnel who are conducting their operations, it is important that they have all the tools needed to do this important job.

The proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act will give them those tools and ensure that the critical objectives for the flight safety program are met.

The Canadian Forces has made a significant investment in the flight safety program over the last 60 years. This investment is critical as our military cannot afford to lose personnel and equipment due to aircraft accidents. In addition, this investment has paid off as it has been a key factor in reducing the aircraft loss rates of the 1950s to the low levels that we see today.

The Canadian Forces maintains a cadre of highly trained accident investigators to ensure that the causes of aircraft accidents can be quickly determined and the appropriate safety measures put in place to eliminate or reduce the risk of recurrence.

The proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act will help this excellent program adapt to changing times and ensure that the flight safety program continues to be as effective as it has been in the past.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while I thank the member from Winnipeg North for her intervention on Bill C-6, I want to remind her that it was on Bill C-6 that she stood to read somebody else's speech and then segued into finance and a number of other areas, doing a fine job as a parliamentarian and not answering any questions.

As a warm and fuzzy Conservative, or an alien, because I do not remember what she called me, I do have a question. She talked about accountability and an open and due process and how the bill has been in front of the House and the Senate numerous times.

What does she think about the committee process that Parliament has had for many years? In regard to those amendments, she finally got to at least one of them. I am not sure if she said there were three. I only heard about one. Does she not think that at least those amendments could be dealt with at committee? They may or may not be approved, but is it not an open and accountable process that Parliament always has had? Why is she not in favour of getting this to committee?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-6. I want to note that my colleague, our critic for transportation, is presently tied up in a very important committee proceeding dealing with softwood lumber. The member would have loved to have been here to begin the debate on this bill from the point of view of the New Democratic Party. I am only too pleased to take his place and to put on record our deep concerns with this bill.

I want members to know right at the outset that we find this bill to be seriously flawed and needing more than simply a referral to committee for verification purposes or for purposes of checking to see whether or not it jeopardizes the safety of Canadians in any way. Rather, we see the importance of basically beginning again or, in fact, making such major amendments at committee that we can deal with these concerns.

Let us put this bill into perspective. It is allegedly an extensive rewriting of the Aeronautics Act. Members of the opposition were given a short briefing on the bill and found a number of concerns.

I want to be clear that we know from the outset that this is basically a Liberal government bill. It is roughly the same bill as that which was put before the House by the Liberals. Back then it was known as Bill S-33. It was slated to go through the Senate before the House. It was introduced last summer in the Senate by the transport minister and was subsequently challenged in the Senate by the Senate Conservatives and ruled out of order as a money bill. The bill then reappeared as Bill C-62 in the fall of 2005 where, of course, it died on the order paper with the election.

Here we are back at it. This time it is Bill C-6 and not much has changed from the days of Bill S-33 and Bill C-62. It is still a flawed bill.

I am surprised that the Conservatives chose not to address some of the serious shortcomings of this bill and actually bring forward a decent piece of legislation that could be supported by all members of the House. Clearly, we want to see some up-to-date, modern legislation in this era of rapid travel around the globe by air, given all the controversy around airlines these days, and the numbers of problems that people have run into such as the efficiency of airlines, costs and, of course, safety and security. It is a timely piece of legislation, but I am afraid that this bill just does not meet the goal.

As it now stands the NDP will have to oppose this bill. We will continue to oppose it until some major flaws are dealt with. In the meantime, we are consulting with stakeholders. We will be seeking input and advice from concerned Canadians and involved organizations all over this country to get the best advice possible.

Needless to say, it needs some more time or it needs to be scrapped. Members can pick, but I would almost prefer to scrap it and start again. If the government is intent upon bringing forward a regurgitated bill from the Liberals, then let us ensure that it is done properly.

We will be looking for serious consideration of our amendments which we will propose at committee to address the serious flaws in the bill. Those areas include new safety management systems, immunity from prosecution for airlines that violate safety rules under certain conditions, and heightened secrecy and more accurate information on the safety performance of airlines. Those will be the broad areas that we will look at in pursuing amendments at the committee stage.

Needless to say, there have been numerous concerns about the way in which government, the way in which both the Liberals and the Conservatives are dealing with this area of aeronautics policy and safety management systems.

One of the biggest concerns that we and other Canadians have is on accountability, accountability to Parliament, accountability to the people of Canada, open and transparent decision making, all of the things that the Conservatives said were intrinsic to their mandate, inherent in their philosophy and would be fundamental to the work they would do in this House. Yet here we are again, as we have been faced with on so many occasions over the last little while, with another example of the Conservatives deciding to let all that talk about accountability float off into thin air and be set aside in the interests of expediency and, I would guess, extreme ideology.

Speaking of extreme ideology, it is interesting that today we received the news that the government has appointed an extreme right-wing thinker, Dr. Brian Lee Crowley, to the very important position of special adviser or visiting economist in the Department of Finance.

On a personal basis I have nothing against Brian Crowley. In fact, 30 years ago this year we were both parliamentary interns in this place. At that time Brian Crowley was a rather progressive individual. I thought if anything he was leaning toward the New Democratic Party, but clearly he has had a metamorphosis along life's journey and has emerged at the other end of his life as a radically extreme right-wing individual who has the audacity to oppose such fundamental policies as pay equity for women. He feels that is not a real public policy issue and has no basis in fact in terms of it being an economic question and a fundamental human rights issue. He opposes employment insurance on most accounts. He has recommended basically a continental integration scheme between Atlantic Canada and the Atlantic northeastern states. He has certainly spoken out against notions that are important for this country such as equalization and sharing of resources and talent across this land.

I found it very interesting that the Minister of Finance named him as his special adviser, filling a very important position in the Department of Finance. I thought that with some of the minister's recent statements and some of his concerns about corporations paying their fair share of taxes he had seen the light and was coming around to more New Democratic thinking. I thought he was beginning to realize the importance of a more balanced approach on economic and fiscal matters, and then he turned around and did something like this today. I do not know.

Needless to say, that is an indication of where the government really is going. It is probably a good thing that this happens every so often, that the government will make one of its patronage appointments just like it did in terms of climate change. It appointed to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council someone whose thinking is alien to the very notion of climate change . And here we are with someone from a right-wing think tank in Atlantic Canada in the Department of Finance.

Maybe it is a good thing, because then we really get to understand and see that despite all their attempts at trying to portray themselves as warm and fuzzy Conservatives, they are really hard-nosed extreme right-wing reactionaries. These kinds of appointments actually remind us what kind of battle we are in, what we are up against and how we always have to be vigilant. We should never let our guard down. We must always question authority, as we tell our children, question government and continue to push and press and fight for change.

Today we are dealing with the Aeronautics Act. On a fundamental issue of accountability, safety and security of people in this country, the government once again is going the route of expediency rather than the route of what is in the best interests of Canadians.

Let me go through a few of our concerns. Let us start with safety management systems. For members who are interested, this issue is found in clause 12 of Bill C-6. That clause seeks to give authority to the governor in council to establish and implement management systems, better known as safety management systems, or SMS. It is important to note that this is at the very heart of the changes to the Aeronautics Act that will affect the safety of the travelling public and crew members.

This process of SMS is well under way and it is being quarterbacked by the director general of civil aviation, Mr. Merlin Preuss. It is important to note there are real concerns about this whole approach in the bill. There must be strong accountability measures built into the bill and there must be a clear attempt to protect the public interest. Our question is how is the public interest protected under SMS?

It would seem that if anything, there will be increased reliance on time consuming and costly lawsuits to deal with inevitable systems failures. Many of these problems and complaints will be initiated by the victims or the surviving families of these breakdowns. Let us face it; we have to think about the future, and if we have not put in place an ironclad safety system that is not so overwhelmed by process and leads to possible lawsuits, we are only asking for doom and gloom or disastrous consequences.

It should be noted that Transport Canada officials have candidly admitted that some U.S. Federal Aviation Administration officials have said that Canadians are giving away the store with SMS. That whole area is of deep concern to us. I could go on at length about some of the problems under SMS, for example, that it will be the airlines that decide safety levels for the travelling public. Robert Milton will now be safeguarding the public interest. Henceforth Air Canada's bottom line will be the factor in setting safety levels for that airline.

I could talk about the fact that there will be a consequent shift in relationship between airlines and Transport Canada. As Marc Grégoire, the ADM of safety and security has said:

There must also be a willingness on the part of the regulator to step back from involvement in the day-to-day activities of the company in favour of allowing organizations to manage their activities and related hazards and risks themselves.

We would like to see this whole area dealt with in a serious way, if not by throwing out this bill and starting again, then certainly by the Conservatives accepting some very major amendments to the bill. That is one concern.

Let me go to another one that has to do with the delegation of rule setting to private bodies, obviously a deep concern. Whenever we give away authority from Parliament or an authorized body, then we are causing problems for ourselves down the road. I am referring to clause 12, the new parts of section 5 of the act.

Through SMS we are supposed to enhance aviation safety because it supposedly builds on a robust set of minimum standards set by Transport Canada in the public interest. In the various public and private statements, there have been very evasive comments on the level of basic regulation that will be maintained in the future.

We are concerned, given the way the legislation is worded and given the rather vague description around all of this in the bill, that actions will speak louder than words. Transport Canada has already transferred the actual operation of the regulatory regime for certain classes of air operators entirely to the private sector. It has done so even though the new section 5.31 in clause 12 of the bill has yet to be passed authorizing such designation to organizations. That is shocking. Here again the Conservatives are doing exactly the opposite of what their words intended, which was to allow for due process and to ensure open and transparent actions and to put in place strong measures of accountability.

This transfer which was not authorized in any way actually occurred for business aircraft in March 2005. Who is next? What else will happen? Transport Canada is now openly speaking about doing the same for commercial operators, most recently at the Canadian aviation safety seminar last April in Halifax.

I guess the fox is in charge of the hen house. If not now, certainly soon the foxes will be running their own hen houses. It fits with the general philosophy of the Conservatives who have often said that the least government is the best government. Their idea of government is very narrowly focused. When they think of government they think of very narrow specific roles for government.

The House resumed 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.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about some elements of the bill first and then use the opportunity to go on to talk about some safety elements related to my riding. They may not be totally connected to the bill, but as everyone knows, I always like to talk about my riding and the issues that are important to it.

Bill C-6 which amends the Aeronautics Act, will provide Transport Canada with an increased ability to maintain and increase safety and security of Canada's aviation systems.

If an imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, we in the Liberal Party are very flattered as this proposed legislation mimics Bill C-62 introduced by the former Liberal government in the last Parliament. When talking about flattery, I must say you are doing an excellent job, Mr. Speaker, for your first time in that chair.

Where the safety and security of the flying public and air transport employees are concerned, there can be no compromise. That is why this legislation is so important. There can be no compromise on safety.

Canada is a geographically large and vast country. It is essential that we have the ability to travel by air safely and securely between our large urban centres as well as between the outlying remote communities. Air transport links us as a country from sea to sea to sea.

Air travel is necessary for Canada to compete in the global economy, to allow our tourism industry to flourish, and to unite family and friends who may live half a continent away. Canadians have come to rely on, indeed most take for granted, the safe, secure transportation system of our aviation industry.

We can see that particularly in the north. There are many communities that we cannot even get to except by air. Just to get to work every week I fly every month more than the entire circumference of the world. When I get home, I have to cover an area larger than any country in Europe. Often we use small planes. It is instrumental, part of commuting, that there be safety provisions, both mechanically, legislatively and personnel wise.

This act and its predecessor, Bill C-62, have resulted from extensive consultations through the Canadian Aviation Regulatory Advisory Council and reflect the learned input of labour and management organizations, operators and manufacturers, and aviation associations, all of whom consider safety their number one priority.

I would not be as comfortable in sending this to committee for further study had there been not all this consultation done with labour, manufacturers and those companies that are involved in the industry. They are the experts in the industry and know what needs to be done to ensure the highest level of safety.

The legislation addresses a myriad of administrative clauses so essential for the smooth and safe operations of our aviation systems. The devil is in the details and this devil has been put in its place by the legislation.

The act provides for the establishment of an integrated management system providing for the cumulation of dates that will help Transport Canada to better manage and regulate safety and security concerns, and to set standards leading to continued improvements to adapt changing circumstances. The aim is create a culture of safety and to continuously engage the aviation industry in amending or developing regulations.

One interesting and innovative approach is that the legislation authorizes the establishment of a voluntary reports program under which information relating to aviation safety and security may be reported without fear of reprisal. The program provides for individuals to provide confidential reports of regulation violations, not with the view of punishment but to identify and correct mistakes and to make safety improvements.

To err is human and if mistakes do happen in a less safety regulated environment, let us learn from those errors with immediate disclosure.

It is one of the whistleblower protections in the public service with essential safety and security as its end good. Better to prevent a tragedy than not to have the information.

The protections in section 5.396, part (1), will not apply. However, if there has been a prior contravention of the act within a prior two-year period before to or subsequently, there is a management system of the employer that encourages an employee to disclose a system if the employer did not do so.

I would add a cautionary note, however, that the government and Transport Canada in particular must be vigilant on the safety performance of airlines and by monitoring violations of safety rules must ensure that the whistleblower aspect of this clause in fact has the intended effect of improving aviation safety.

We must be mindful of an incident reported by the media where airline mechanics acknowledged being pressured to release planes with defects that could compromise public safety. Such conduct is simply and utterly unacceptable, not only for the confidence of our flying community in the planes that crisscross our skies but also for the economic stability of airline companies. Second best or next time just does not cut it.

In an earlier hour of this debate I asked about, and I hope the witnesses in committee will be prepared to provide some information on this, mandatory reports. What was the incidence of non-compliance when these reports were missing? What type of percentage? What was the number and with this new voluntary reporting system, what effect will that have? Will there be more chances for abrogation or less chances? Would it result in more reports being put in or less reports?

As my colleague mentioned in his speech before mine, there would not be, on occasion, reports to be collected. What effect would this have? If Transport Canada does not have all the reports to do analysis on, is there a possibility that these reports could act like the canary in the mine shaft and be a warning?

There are all sorts of excellent airline companies in the north. There is Air North flying out of Whitehorse, and I know the member from Thunder Bay will be happy to hear about that one. There is First Air, Canadian North, Alkan Air, all small airlines in this country that are very useful and helpful.

However, in their combined reports there may have been one particular mechanical failure to a particular part of the plane. Hopefully, there are not very many in this industry because the results could be devastating. If Transport Canada has all these reports and sees the very same mechanical failing and maybe two months later the same mechanical failing elsewhere, could it put those together and analyze them and prevent a potential tragedy by having that accumulated information? By having the information regarding an airline, a manager of an airline would be quite interested in having this information regarding the safety of his airline. I am hoping the witnesses can comment on this and how it would relate to the new reporting system and its effect.

I also want to mention inputs I have had from local airlines. One flying out of Watson Lake in Yukon was unhappy about some of the conditions, not necessarily safety but related to maintenance on the runways related to gravel. That was for the Dawson City Airport.

Transport Canada has an excellent program that provides grants for improvements to help airport safety across the country. It is an excellent program. We have had excellent projects in Yukon, but unless the amount of money increases in that program, all the projects that need to be done to improve safety at Canada's airports cannot be completed.

On the other side, I had a letter a few days ago about an aircraft flying from Watson Lake to Whitehorse, I believe, a flight of a couple of hours. It was a small plane. In the north, of course, it is a whole different environment, with all sorts of small planes with different technologies. There are bird dogs for the forest fires and the mining camps. There are float planes taking in tourists for canoe trips. This particular small plane landed at place called Teslin, about two hours from Whitehorse, because there was bad weather. These people complimented Sue and Linda at the Teslin airport for the wonderful reception. They were delighted that there was an airport in a town of only several hundred people.

This is an essential investment in Canada's north. It may not seem at the outset to be very economical, but we cannot put a price on a life. That airport was ready for that small plane to come down in bad weather. It is essential, and we need to keep up the investment in the small and rural airports across this country, not underestimate them for something as simple as dollars and cents at the expense of life.

Another thing I want to talk about is one of our major airlines in the north. Although it is a major airline and uses the same planes, like 737s, to be economical and to survive in that environment it needs to put baggage in part of the plane and passengers in another part of the plane. Otherwise, it would need much smaller planes, which would not be economical and would not be as comfortable for the passengers. The airline could not survive.

We do not need any regulations that are unnecessary, regulations that would, for instance, preclude putting baggage in the main compartment. It has been done for years. It is totally safe in the northern environment. It is absolutely essentially that it continue.

As always, I am promoting a rural lens on regulations, a northern lens, to make sure that legislation is effectively looked at from the perspective of small rural communities where we can maintain safety but also be flexible so that it is realistic in the environment we are talking about.

This will probably be the last bit of time we have before members' statements and I thank the Conservatives for all their support for my speech as well. I know they are always enthralled with my speeches.

It is a fact that we now have thousands of flights going over the north pole, the circumpolar area. That never occurred in the past. That is a whole new safety regime. The distance from airports is longer and there is a different type of landing potential in emergencies, but most important for me is the lack of search and rescue north of 60.

Many members have heard me talk about this in the House and in committee and have seen it in the newspapers. The fact that we do not have a single DND search and rescue plane north of 60 is unacceptable. We definitely have to work on that. Why would we have all our search and rescue planes close to the Canada-U.S. border and have to fly all that distance to save someone on one of these flights?

I am happy to have contributed to the debate. We look forward to sending the bill to committee.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-6 concerning the Aeronautics Act.

When this bill was first debated, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport Canada told us that it provides for a legislative framework to further enhance aviation safety and, through safety management systems, to have a system in place that will actually allow a continuous method of keeping Canadians safe. According to him, Australia and the United Kingdom have had great results from this system.

Bill C-6 does indeed deal with integrated management systems and does allow for voluntary reporting programs under which information relating to aviation safety and security can be reported. Bill C-6 is indeed also based on the work done by the previous Liberal government.

However, it will be up to the present government to persuade us, to persuade us and Canadians, that the bill is still a good one.

Before I delve into the provisions of the text, let me make perfectly clear the principle upon which this side of the House's comments are predicated. The average Canadian citizen trusts that when it comes to boarding an airplane in this country, to fly to any destination, our federal government carries out its responsibility to ensure that the flight will be safe.

When parents send their teenage daughter on her first trip away from home, they trust in our federal safety system. When children see their father off on a business trip, they trust in our federal safety system. When a family waits patiently at the airport for a visit from their grandmother, they trust in our federal safety system.

The government has assigned this responsibility to Transport Canada and this bill seeks to amend a large piece of the legislation that safeguards passengers on the planes in our skies.

Bill C-6 amends the Aeronautics Act, which, as we know, establishes the Minister of Transport's responsibility for the development and the regulation of aeronautics in Canada and the supervision of all matters related to aeronautics. In particular, the Aeronautics Act enables the minister to apply the Canadian aviation regulations, which are, in effect, the rules governing aviation in Canada.

Keeping this in mind, I believe all members in the House will understand the caution that we as an opposition will bring to our examination of Bill C-6.

There are four avenues of inquiry that I would like to raise here today. If Bill C-6 is acceptable in premise to this House, then we will soon see it in committee and will be able to apply a stringent analysis of it, beginning, I hope, with these questions.

A large portion of this bill deals with the decision to make “integrated management systems” the basis for a broad range of important regulations, but what exactly are integrated management systems?

Over the past 10 years, companies in the transportation industries have adopted complex plans to achieve certain goals. These are management tools. These plans are systemic, in the sense that they coordinate activities throughout the company to achieve their goals, and they are integrated, in the sense that they bring together the standards set by outside authorities with the processes used by modern transportation enterprises.

Safety management systems are an example of an essential kind of integrated management system. Under a specific safety management system, an airline may, for example, set out how and how often its mechanics have to check an airplane's engines. The plans, the safety management systems, are meant to prevent problems from occurring by taking every reasonable precaution.

By planning how often mechanics are to check the engines and by planning what they should do if there is a question mark of any sort, hopefully there will never be a safety incident. This is the role of a safety management system.

Transport Canada has been working with airlines and safety management systems for several years. Up until now, they have guided a company's actions but have not had the force of law. Instead, Transport Canada has continued to enforce safety regulations, enabled by the existing Aeronautics Act, as the legal standards for safe flying.

If an airline did not comply with the actual aviation regulations, including the paperwork submitted to prove that it was in compliance, it did not matter how good the safety management system was. The airline was simply breaking the law.

Now, with Bill C-6, the government would like to change the obligations of airlines and certain other aviation organizations. The government is saying that Transport Canada should be able to compel these organizations to meet their safety standards, these requirements, and do away with the old prescriptive Transport Canada regulations.

The argument for this evolution is that airlines have many things to do to ensure safety. They have every incentive to be safe and so have already come up with the systems that are most effective.

It is a waste of time and energy, the government argues, for these companies to verify to Transport Canada at every turn that the safety checks are done. Instead, Transport Canada should focus on ensuring that the system agreed to is actually in effect through audits and inspections.

Let us think about this for the average Canadian as if we were taking care of a truck. Right now, Transport Canada tells the company to inspect the brakes every month. It asks for paperwork stating that the inspection was complete. The company's representative declares that the inspection was done and that there was no problem. With Bill C-6, Transport Canada would instead require the company to plan to check the brakes and it would check to see that the plan was being followed, but no paperwork would be submitted on a continual basis attesting that those individual checks were done successfully.

Is this a better way of ensuring safety for travelling Canadians? Does it allow precious safety resources to be better focused on integrating a whole safe system so that incidents do not occur? Or, does it relieve pressure and ultimately lead to gaps that could have tragic consequences?

Despite the enthusiasm of the parliamentary secretary and the minister for Bill C-6, I do not see a clear-cut answer to this yet. We need to know that the safety measures that are to be used are accurate and encourage the safest possible flights. We also need to know that the safety indicators, tracked by different airlines, are comparable, that when we raise the bar, we are comparing apples to apples in establishing our safety standards.

Bill C-6 contains the provision on voluntary reporting of information relating to aviation safety and security, a provision that gives rise to another concern.

The bill authorizes the minister to establish a program under which individuals working in the transportation industry may report to his department any information relating to aviation safety that they consider to be relevant, in the strictest confidentiality. The goal here is for people who are responsible for mistakes to have every reason to admit them as soon as possible so that they can remedied before any damage is done.

I fully support the creation of an environment in which employees and others will do everything possible to ensure safety. In fact, from the important work done by our government in the area of intelligent regulation, I have observed over the years that we must be more flexible in the instruments we choose to achieve the desired result. The desired result in this case is clear: safe aircraft—period.

The government has a spectrum of possible tools at its disposal to achieve this clear goal of safety. They range, on the one hand, from specific command and control style regulations, with Transport Canada saying, “Thou shalt abide by this rule”, to, on the other hand, purely voluntary measures. My concern is that voluntary reporting of critical safety information may not be sufficient in a situation where people's lives and people's livelihoods are at risk.

Undoubtedly, we need a mix of rules and regulations that provide for the best opportunity to prevent air disasters. We have a good track record. Let us be careful about what changes we are ready to make here.

My third area of concern is the powers of the minister generally. There are several pieces of legislation before us this fall, during a minority government no less, that intend to increase the powers of the Minister of Transport.

Bill C-3 would give the minister the direct power to authorize the construction of international bridges and tunnels without parliamentary oversight. Bill C-6 would open the door for the minister to devolve his powers and responsibilities for aeronautical safety to other organizations. Bill C-11 would allow the minister to review mergers and acquisitions in all federal transportation sectors, hardly the hallmark of a Conservative government. Bill C-20, if we ever see it come to the fore, proposes to let the minister oversee and constrain the operations of airport authorities in new and restrictive ways.

When taken as a whole, these measures indicate clearly that the government is moving forward on all fronts to give the Minister of Transport new powers.

It is fear of this very tendency, what was described as a power grab, that prompted a loud outcry from the members of the Conservative Party when they were in opposition. I note that they have been strangely silent for several months now, however, when it comes to expanding government powers. This is particularly true in the case of the backbenchers on the government side.

I would note that I am not opposed to the principle of greater powers when that is necessary, but I would like to remind the minister and the government side of what they said and the expectations they created on the part of the Canadian public. They still have the onus of demonstrating the urgent need to expand the minister’s powers, not only in Bill C-6, but also in four other transport bills.

Finally, let me turn to my fourth subject and my fourth area of concern, the proposed creation of the Canadian Forces airworthiness investigative authority. The new CFAIA, as it is called, would take on the responsibilities of the Transportation Safety Board for aeronautical incidents, including accidents that involve Canadian Forces aircraft.

The information surrounding these events would now fall under the clear jurisdiction of the Minister of National Defence, as we have just heard from his parliamentary secretary. This is, in and of itself, a sensible development. However, the concerns expressed to me by various groups, which I wish to express to the government, regard incidents that involve both military and civilian aircraft.

The new CFAIA would be given the authority to investigate these incidents and accidents in Bill C-6. However, Canadians want to be assured that they will still have access to full and complete information in the unfortunate circumstance that an accident affects them or their loved ones. In fact, they would like access to full and complete information whether or not the accident directly affects them because transparency is of the utmost importance in a democratic society such as ours.

The new subsection 17(2) of the Aeronautics Act would read that investigation observers from outside the forces are “Subject to any conditions that the Airworthiness Investigative Authority imposes...”. It is incumbent upon the government to now clarify what measures are being taken to guarantee that the facts of any future incident will not be covered up using the proposed provisions of the Aeronautics Act.

I know that the government is committed in words to transparency, but Canadians need to see that the government is equally committed to act in a transparent manner.

I am pleased to see that under Liberal leadership, the government did extensive consultations with industry, labour and other stakeholders, and that there appears to be widespread support for some of the provisions in this bill, but as a responsible opposition, we are not yet convinced that the bill as written meets the appropriate societal tests.

There is no doubt in my mind that we must be constantly vigilant to ensure that the federal government, which is constitutionally seized with and responsible for aeronautical safety, and the private aircraft operators and companies who compete today in a low margin, highly competitive international marketplace, have struck the appropriate balance of rule and regulation to provide for safety in the greater public interest.

The families who depart and arrive in airports throughout Canada, every minute and every hour of every day, deserve no less than our full attention to Bill C-6.

We will support the bill at second reading and I look forward to the opportunity in committee to hear witnesses explain, in much greater detail, what will actually happen on the ground should Bill C-6 earn our ultimate approval.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, I am pleased to support the amendments to the Aeronautics Act introduced by my hon. colleague the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. In many ways the proposed amendments are critical.

The proposed changes will modernize the Aeronautics Act and help improve the safety of Canada's military aviation system.

More specifically, Bill C-6 will provide new powers that will ensure that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces have all the necessary authority to conduct full and proper investigations into military aviation accidents. At the same time, the bill will promote openness, independence and integrity in military flight safety investigations.

I would like to begin by describing for my hon. colleagues where things stand at present with the flight safety program.

Since 1942, the Canadian Forces have had an official flight safety program, designed to prevent accidental loss of aviation resources.

This program has proven to be very effective, and after nearly 65 years, is now firmly entrenched in the culture of the air force. The flight safety program includes investigating aviation accidents and developing recommendations to reduce or eliminate the same type of incidents from reoccurring.

Military flight safety investigators use processes, techniques and training that are similar to those of the Transportation Safety Board which investigates, under the provisions of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act, civilian aircraft accidents. This act, however, precludes the Transportation Safety Board from investigating a military aircraft accident, unless a civilian aircraft or facility is also involved. In such circumstances, a coordinated investigation is required. Therefore, it is very important that both agencies, civilian and military, operate in the same manner.

For many years military air operations and training were exclusively military. The aircraft were Canadian Forces aircraft and all of the maintenance and flying instruction was conducted by military personnel. However, over the past number of years, civilians in the private sector have become increasingly involved in military air operations and training. For instance, one can now find civilian contractors conducting maintenance on Canadian Forces search and rescue helicopters, our Sea King helicopters, and transport aircraft. Also, one may find civilian personnel providing military flight training associated with base support services and aircraft maintenance services at the NATO flying training in Canada program at Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan and Cold Lake, Alberta.

As well, a new civil contract has just been awarded to a company to conduct basic flight training along with advanced helicopter and multi-engine aircraft training at Southport, Manitoba. It is a program that employs civilian aircraft maintained by civilian personnel and operated by either civilian or military instructors.

Civilians are therefore increasingly involved in military aviation in Canada.

These changes in the way operations and flight instruction are supported are raising concerns about whether all the necessary powers to investigate aviation accidents and incidents are in place.

Specifically, today there is no legal means to compel civilian personnel who are involved in an accident to provide information to a military flight safety investigator. This means that under the current legal framework the Canadian Forces do not have the necessary powers to conduct flight safety investigations of military aircraft accidents when civilian personnel are involved. This is a very significant issue for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces.

Unless a full investigation into aircraft accidents is done, we may miss out on important safety lessons, and major safety problems might remain undetected and unresolved.

In the worst case scenario, a similar accident might occur again and result in death or serious injury because appropriate safety measures have not been determined.

This is a serious safety problem that we will address through Bill C-6.

Under the new part II of the act, military flight safety investigators will be specifically designated by the airworthiness investigative authority for National Defence and the Canadian Forces. As a result, they will have the necessary powers to investigate military-civilian aviation accidents. One of these new powers will require civilians to provide information or a statement relevant to the investigation. At this time no such requirement exists and this can be problematic to the investigation process.

Moreover, these amendments will ensure that any additional powers and duties from military flight safety investigations remain consistent with those of the Transportation Safety Board investigators.

One of the key segments of this proposed legislation will extend privilege to oral and written statements made to investigators and also to on-board aircraft recordings and communication records. This will make release of these statements without proper authorization an offence under the law and will prohibit their use in disciplinary and other legal proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury.

This means that National Defence will be able to ensure that flight safety information reported by civilians involved in military aviation will be protected under the law. It is a move that will strengthen the military flight safety system and will ensure the best possible flight safety program for the Canadian Forces.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada guarantees full protection of flight safety information, but investigations have shown that this protection has not been optimal when it comes to the military.

With Bill C-6, the Department of National Defence will be able to seamlessly share investigation information with the Transportation Safety Board during coordinated investigations.

I would now like to address what would happen to flight safety information in on-board recordings if a military aircraft accident occurred outside Canada.

First, a flight safety investigation would be conducted according to the new amendments to determine the cause of the accident. In addition, other investigations could also be ordered by the department for purposes other than flight safety. Such investigations would normally be conducted by the military boards of inquiry convened under the National Defence Act. Currently, during coordinated investigations with the Transportation Safety Board and during court proceedings, coroners would have limited opportunities to use on-board recordings.

The proposed amendments to the aeronautics act will provide investigators with the tools they need to fulfill their mandate. However, as an accident outside Canada could well raise significant international issues with allies in other countries, the new amendments will provide access to these records for military boards in limited circumstances. Canadians can rest assured that these amendments will only be provided during an investigation related to a Canadian Forces military aircraft accident outside Canada and only if the board of inquiry had been personally convened by the Minister of National Defence.

Furthermore, the minister will have to direct that these on-board recordings be released on a case by case basis. However, we should be reminded that use would still remain prohibited in disciplinary proceedings or any other proceedings relating to the capacity or competence of a Canadian Forces member to perform his or her functions.

I must now also acknowledge another significant problem that is currently frustrating military investigators. It concerns how next of kin of deceased personnel are engaged by the flight safety system.

Ideally, next of kin would be informed of the progress of the investigation and of the findings as they come up throughout the investigation.

However, this is currently not possible given the lack of a legal impediment to prevent the unauthorized and premature distribution of information during an investigation.

The early release of information can easily compromise flight safety investigations. Let me explain. If one of the suspected causes of an accident is the failure of an aircraft component, the military investigators would be very interested in reviewing the reasons for the failure with the manufacturer. The manufacturer will have all of the technical data to complete this analysis, and therefore the importance of this interaction cannot be understated, but if this information were also made known to the next of kin, there is currently no legal sanction if the next of kin in turn passes this information on to the media or another third party.

Such sharing of information could cause the equipment manufacturer to cease all communications with the investigators before they can complete their analysis and necessary recommendations. As a result, next of kin are currently not given an update on the cause of the accident until the investigation is completed because of the risk of premature release of information. This has created a situation that is inappropriate and insensitive to the needs of the families involved. The next of kin of our personnel deserve much better.

The legislation before us today will prohibit the unauthorized release of specific investigation information. This will allow full disclosure of the progress and findings of the investigation as it unfolds. Not only will this keep the next of kin in the loop, this amendment will also allow them to be consulted as the investigative reports are being prepared. This process will permit the next of kin to review early drafts of a report and provide valuable feedback on the human factor to investigators. In essence, the amendments to the Aeronautics Act will create a more transparent process that will serve to bring comfort to the loved ones of those lost in air accidents.

Once again, it is important to note that, under the proposed legislation, statements made by the next of kin of personnel involved in military aviation accidents will be privileged. As I mentioned earlier, unauthorized disclosure of privileged information by anyone will be strictly prohibited by law. This will allow the next of kin to remain informed of the progress of an investigation. It will allow them to contribute to the investigation, but it will ensure that they do not release that information to the media or the public. This is crucial to the security and effectiveness of the investigation process.

We all know that sometimes people may find it difficult to come forward and speak about a problem. These amendments to the Aeronautics Act will help address this critical and important issue. As I mentioned before, under the amendments, flight safety information such as oral or written statements, on-board aircraft recordings and communication records received by military flight investigators will be privileged.

We will encourage voluntary statements and we will protect those who disclose information or reprehensible acts. We could, at the same time, implement safety measures that will make the workplace safer for soldiers and civilians taking part in Canadian Air Force operations.

Another factor that must be considered is the safety of the public. When aircraft accidents occur, the aircraft accident site can pose a number of risks to the health and safety of the public. It is therefore very important that public access to the crash site be restricted without delay. This measure will ensure that the site is secured while protecting the public from the dangers posed by such accidents.

Currently, if the crash site is on government controlled property, access of the public is not an issue, but if the accident occurs on privately owned land, public access can be problematic. The proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act would correct this problem by giving accident investigators the authority to restrict access to the accident sites on private land in the interests of public safety. This in turn will ensure that the aircraft wreckage is as undisturbed as possible.

The proposed amendments will also place additional responsibilities on my department. For example, in order to ensure for the public that an open and independent investigation has been conducted, there will be a requirement that the flight safety investigation report be released to the public on completion of the investigation. These reports include appropriate recommendations for public and aviation safety. Though this is something we have been doing voluntarily since 2001, this practice will now become a legal obligation.

I must emphasize that civilian aviation accidents will of course continue to be investigated by the Transportation Safety Board.

The new amendments will also establish the requirement that a confidential interim report on the progress and findings of an investigation be shared with other departments with a direct interest in the investigation. If an occurrence involves a death and significant progress has been made in an investigation, then an interim report could also be provided to the coroner.

Taken together, these new powers and responsibilities will ensure that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces have the authority necessary to promote openness, independence and integrity in military flight safety investigations.

Military flight safety investigators will be thoroughly trained in respect to all aspects of the new powers and they will be tested before being allowed to exercise them.

Our military has identified some significant gaps in the current legislation and the government has responded.

Amendments to Bill C-6 will improve the capacity of the Canadian Forces to ensure the safety of the men and women in the air force community, civilians involved in military aviation and the general public.

I think all of my colleagues will agree that these amendments show that the government is committed to independent, complete and open military flight safety investigations. I strongly encourage and recommend that all members support these amendments to the Aeronautics Act.

The House resumed from November 6 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech. It was very important. It is a question of transparency. The Conservative government promised to be more transparent, and to increase the ability to see what is going on in government, but we see in Bill C-6 that consumers, the people who travel on airlines, do not necessarily know whether or not an airline company has safety problems or deficiencies in its maintenance plans, for example

Could the member comment on this point?

[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.

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

It is Bill C-6.

[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.

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.

Business of the House

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with the NDP opposition motion.

Tomorrow we should conclude debate on third reading of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment).

Next week we will begin the report stage of Bill C-16, fixed dates for elections, followed by Bill C-26, payday loans, Bill C-6, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, Bill C-17, an act to amend the Judges Act and certain other acts in relation to courts and then Bill C-27, dangerous offenders.

I will continue to consult with the House leaders of other political parties with respect to Bill C-31, the voter integrity bill, and we may be able to proceed with that next week as well.

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.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with Bill C-28, the bill to implement the 2006 budget tax measures. This would be followed, time permitting, with Bill S-2, hazardous materials, and Bill C-6, the aeronautics amendments.

Tomorrow we will continue with the business from today with the possibility as well of completing the third reading stage of Bill C-16. I will talk to the opposition House leader about that after this.

Next week we hope to begin debate on some of the government's justice bills. The first one will be on the age of consent, Bill C-22. If we could get unanimous consent to pass that at all stages that would be very much appreciated.

We will go then to Bill C-27, our dangerous offenders bill and any cooperation we can get to move that along would be appreciated, I think, by the people of this country.

I am looking forward to sitting down with the official opposition and other parties to discuss the speedy passage of the many popular bills that the government has introduced and I am looking forward to their cooperation on that.

Pursuant to Standing Order 66(2), I would like to designate Tuesday, October 31, as the day to continue debate on the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

In response to the member's questions, consideration in committee of the whole of the votes under the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development on the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007, shall take place on Wednesday, November 1, 2006, pursuant to the Standing Orders. The second day for consideration of committee of the whole will be November 7, 2006.

As well, I should indicate that Thursday, November 2, 2006, shall be an allotted day.

With respect to the member's questions with respect to the same sex marriage, we will fulfill our campaign promise on that and we will be proceeding with it this fall.

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

I don't believe so, Mr. Chair. I know we have raised this issue a number of times since we started this parliamentary session.

I support the motion, particularly with the clarification that Mr. Bell has just added, which is that we are looking at it on a nation-wide level. It's very relevant, given that we are dealing with SMS within the rail system, and with Bill C-6 we might be looking at the SMS in the airline industry.

So it's very relevant to be looking at this issue. I think it's important that we not lose sight of other priorities, like the one Mr. Laframboise mentioned and which we have already adopted. As long as we're not losing sight of those other priorities that we have previously adopted, I feel this is an important issue for us to tackle as a committee.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue the debate on an opposition motion which gives the government an opportunity to talk about keeping its promise to review our programs to ensure every taxpayer dollar spent is well spent and by reducing the debt by $13.2 billion.

Tomorrow we will begin debate on Bill C-25 , proceeds of crime, followed by Bill C-26, payday lending.

Next week, we will continue with the business from Friday with the addition of Bill C-27, dangerous offenders, Bill S-2, hazardous materials, Bill C-6 aeronautics, and Bill C-28, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on May 2, 2006.

With respect to my hon. colleague's question on supply day, just like a child waiting for Christmas, he will have to wait a little bit longer. We will get back to him next week.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue to debate an opposition motion.

Tomorrow, we will complete debate on the amendment to Bill C-24, the softwood lumber agreement. Under a special order adopted Tuesday, there is an opportunity to sit into the weekend if needed to give members, particularly members of the New Democratic Party, the debating time they requested on such an important bill.

Next week, the House will be adjourned to allow members to return to their ridings.

When the House resumes on October 16, we will debate Bill C-23, the Criminal Code; Bill S-2, hazardous materials; and Bill C-6, aeronautics.

On Tuesday I will call Bill C-24 again. Thursday will be an allotted day.

We will introduce the motion that the hon. member requested in due course.

At the same time, I would like to wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving weekend.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the hon. gentleman would like us to table everything we are going to do for the whole fall, right up to Christmas. Usually, the Thursday question is just for the week ahead, but it seems to have expanded.

Today, for sure, we will continue with the debate on the opposition motion of his party.

Tomorrow, we hope to complete Bill C-24, the softwood lumber agreement, which will followed by Bill S-2, hazardous materials, and Bill C-6, the Aeronautics Act.

Tomorrow, I intend to ask the House to approve the appointment of Graham Fraser as Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada for a term of seven years.

Depending on progress on the softwood lumber bill, it is my intention to call three justice bills next week as follows: Bill C-19, street racing; Bill C-18, DNA; and Bill C-23, Criminal Code efficiency and effectiveness.

Next Thursday will be an allotted day.

The answers to the hon. member's other questions he will know in good time.

Finally, there have been consultations and there is an agreement to have a take note debate on the situation in Sudan. Therefore, I think you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That a take note debate on the subject of the Situation in Sudan take place, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on Tuesday, October 3.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the hon. member. Today and tomorrow we will continue with Bill C-12, the emergency management act, which will be followed by Bill S-2 for hazardous materials and Bill C-6, the Aeronautics Act.

Pursuant to an order made on Monday, September 18, there will be an address by the President of Afghanistan to be delivered in the chamber of the House of Commons at 9 a.m. on Friday, September 22, 2006.

On Monday we will begin debate on the bill to implement the softwood lumber agreement. We have designated Thursday, September 28, as an allotted day, which, of course, will be allotted to the Liberal Party and it can debate any subject that it would like.

With respect to the member's other questions, this fall we will be proceeding in those areas that we have indicated to Canadians are important. If the hon. member wants a more complete blueprint of what we intend to do all he has to do is have a look at what we said in the last general election.

Aeronautics Act

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

moved 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.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)