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.

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.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, 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.

Motions in Amendment

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-6, in Clause 8, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 25 on page 8.

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

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-6, in Clause 12, be amended by deleting line 35 on page 11 to line 5 on page 16.

[David Emerson, Conservative, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-6, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 15 on page 13 with the following:

“(8) Les normes et les règles établies par”

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-6, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing, in the French version, line 9 on page 18 with the following:

“à qui que ce soit des renseigne-”

[David Emerson, Conservative, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-6, in Clause 12, be amended

(a) by replacing line 26 on page 21 with the following:

“(5) Information reported by an employee under the program”

(b) by replacing line 28 on page 21 with the following:

“used against the employee to take any reprisals,”

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

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-6, in Clause 49, be amended by deleting lines 14 to 16 on page 78.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-6, in Clause 49, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 78 with the following:

“(2) Sections 5.31 to 5.393 of the Aeronautics Act, as enacted by section 12 of this Act, shall not have”

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

moved:

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-6, in Clause 49, be amended by replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 78 with the following:

“(2) Despite subsection (1), sections 5.31 to 5.38 of the Aeronautics Act, as enacted by section 12 of this Act, come into force three years after the day on which this Act receives”

[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.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his speech. He made an excellent comparison between what is currently going on with the railway system and what is going to happen with the airline industry. Everyone knows that there are a growing number of accidents in Canada's railway system because of decisions made by the Liberal government in past years and because of the refusal to take employee recommendations into account.

I would like my colleague to speak more about the ideology that underlies the amendments he spoke about, an ideology that would leave the fox in charge of the henhouse.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Victoria for her question.

What the Conservatives want to do makes no sense and should concern people across the country. We have already seen the consequences of all these rail accidents, in Quebec and elsewhere. The companies were given responsibility, and the result was many more derailments in cities such as Montmagny.

Now, the Conservatives want to do exactly the same thing with the air transportation system. This amendment, which is clearly and completely irresponsible, seeks to eliminate continuous monitoring and regular safety assessments and prevent the appointment of an executive responsible for all the operations of the safety system. The government also wants to do away with the involvement of employees and their bargaining agents in the development, implementation and ongoing operation of the system.

The Conservatives are removing the whole aspect of responsibility that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities put in place. The only possible reason that I can imagine is that this is an ideological choice.

[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 enjoyed working with the member for Eglinton—Lawrence on the transport committee.

I referred to the former Liberal government simply because I think it is a matter of public concern. We saw what happened with the railway system when SMS was brought in with railways. That should point the Conservative government in a different direction. If something has failed, we do not fix it by doing the same thing.

The hon. member's point is a very valid one. Why are Conservatives not standing up on this issue? I think the answer is very clear. They themselves are embarrassed by the government's position. What members of the Conservative Party can stand up in the House and say that they are fighting for less safety for Canadian families and fighting to put Canadian families in danger? What Conservative MP could do that?

They are silent. They may not agree with the government's direction, but we know that the Conservative Party is centralized. The Prime Minister's office gives the orders and Conservative members just follow. The reason why they are not speaking, the reason why they are silent, is that they simply cannot defend the position they have taken and it will be very difficult for them this summer, I think, to—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order. I think this would be the appropriate time to resume debate and recognize the hon. member for Lethbridge.

[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.

[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--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order. I will give the hon. member for Lethbridge the chance.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this chance you are giving me.

Witness after witness who came to committee, and I would say almost all the witnesses who appeared, said that the safety management systems being considered here will create a far safer environment in the aviation industry in Canada than already--

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

That is simply not true.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I gave that member a chance to do his ranting and I listened to him. Committee members had to listen to him week after week. I wish he would be quiet and listen to me for a second. After indicating that nobody from the Conservative Party would get up and talk, now he is trying to shout me down. It is very typical of that member.

Witness after witness who came to the committee indicated that safety management systems will create a better system in Canada and that 400% to 500% more reports would be brought forward. Once these reports are tabled and once they are available, all in the industry can access them. That, to me, is the key. That flow of information will allow other people involved in the industry to be able to access it to make the industry safer.

The International Civil Aviation Organization indicated that Canada is a leader in safety in the aviation industry and will continue to be a leader in this industry with the adoption of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the only thing I would like to say to my Conservative colleague is that it is important to understand the whole safety management system.

I was one of the people who were opposed to this bill on first reading, However, I have been convinced of the value of this safety management system, which is being put in place to meet international standards.

The main problem is that the government is setting aside Canada's existing inspection system, the only one of its kind in the world. That is what the Conservatives want to do. Motion No. 2 introduced by the government seeks to abolish, limit or remove the definition of the safety management system on page 8. In so doing, the government is threatening the entire inspection system.

It is wrong to say that clause 5.391 replaces this paragraph, because the paragraph on page 8 stipulates that every carrier must perform continuous monitoring and regular assessment of the level of safety and mentions the involvement of employees and their bargaining agents in the development, implementation and ongoing operation of the system. I hope the member is aware that deleting this from the bill will endanger Canada's existing inspection system.

[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.

[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.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously we are all concerned about safety in our air space as we travel back and forth to our own ridings each week. In the globalized world in which we live, air traffic is of utmost importance.

It is my understanding that a great number of the amendments proposed in the bill are described as technical or editorial in nature. There were some serious amendments and efforts, as the member mentioned, during the four months of hard work by the committee, and I applaud the committee's efforts. However, I would like to ask the member opposite whether there was a consensus among the pilots represented at the committee.

From my understanding, if there is anybody who would want to ensure there is safety in the air, it would be the men and women whose livelihood is flying these aircraft. Were the pilots in favour of the amendments being proposed to the bill?

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member probably knows more about this than I do since he sat on the committee and was actually in the government that initially introduced the bill, but is this not the thin edge of the wedge in terms of a move to actually privatize the oversight of safety in the air industry in a way that we have seen in other jurisdictions, such as rail where now we see derailments day after day across the country putting lives at stake and actually whole communities at risk as those railways go through the towns?

There is nothing more at risk and fragile than an airplane in the air and particularly one that is not safe. It surprises me. I see the government on one front, and particularly where air is concerned, going over the top with now a no-fly list and the rigour that is exercised when we go through security to get on a plane, the backups and the lineups that we all experience. I have no difficulty with those things because I think we do need to ensure that when we fly, and thousands of people fly every day, we feel confident and we feel safe.

However, to turn the oversight of the safety of airplanes to the companies themselves that actually run them, given the very competitive nature of that industry now, it does not seem to me to be very much in the public interest. I would like the member to respond to that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I came from the government that introduced the father legislation to this. At the time, our view was, first, that we would have no diminution in the authority of the government's regulatory power.

Our second view was that an inspectorate to provide the appropriate oversight would actually have increased mechanisms and resources to get the job done. We are in no way supportive of devolving the authority for both oversight and the resources to ensure that the inspectorate works.

I took that into the committee and the committee's amendments to the initial act reflect that fact. In other words, an SMS works but the inspectorate and the ability of the government to regulate the industry and provide inspection to ensure there is compliance remains not only untouched but actually improved.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I note that the member's caucus will not be voting in support of this bill. Does he not agree with us that from its very inception, which was brought in by the Liberals, this has been part of a trend to turn absolutely everything over in government to the private sector because it is felt that it can do things more efficiently and cost effectively without any real consideration to the public good, the public safety or the protection of citizens?

This is more about saving money, pulling government out of areas that require further expenditure and more effort by government to protect its citizens. If this is not another step down that road, but a very alarming step because there is nothing, in my view and experience, more fragile than an airplane full of people crossing the country at a great height and if something should go wrong, there is absolutely no turning back, no way to deal with it without the possibility of great tragedy. I am wondering if that is part of the reason that the member's caucus will be voting against this bill.

[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.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I, along with my colleague from Eglinton—Lawrence and the Bloc member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, sit on the transport committee and we were part of the discussions that went on. We heard from the various witnesses and I would like to clarify one thing and see if the Bloc member agrees.

In our discussions and in the work we are doing with respect to rail derailments across Canada, one of the things that was pointed out to us on the committee is that the Railway Safety Act lacks the muscle and the teeth that the Aeronautics Act presently has. The suggestion was that when the time comes we will be recommending changes to the Railway Safety Act to put more teeth in it so that the safety management systems that are in place in the rail industry can be enforced in the way they can be with the Aeronautics Act right now.

However, I think it is also fair to say, and the member from the Bloc may comment on this, that all members of the transport committee have expressed a high concern for air safety in terms of the passengers, the crews, the pilots and in terms of the safety issues that are referred to by air safety at the airport, just generally the whole concept of air safety, and that was the nature of the discussions that occurred.

From what I can see, the amendments that the NDP has proposed really restate issues that were raised in debate among all the committee members following the presentation of information from the witnesses. They were debated in the committee, voted on and decisions made. Therefore, this is a re-entry.

I think the government's Motion No. 2 does attempt, as has been said by both my colleague and the Bloc member, to change the nature of the bill and we will not be supporting it.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right to make the comparison with the railway system, since even the Transportation Safety Board representative could not confirm that the railway safety management system has reduced the number of accidents. This is, quite simply, because the railway inspection system created by Transport Canada has only 25 inspectors for all of Canada. Imagine the kilometres of tracks to be inspected. One day, that legislation will have to be amended. We must not make the same mistake as the Conservatives, however, by trying to reduce the aviation inspection service, which consists of 800 employees, to 25 inspectors, like the railway inspection service.

When the time comes to amend the legislation to enhance rail safety, it will be important to ensure that the inspection and monitoring system can guarantee that the safety management systems created by the railway companies are adequate.

An inspection and monitoring system is therefore needed, and that is what the ICAO is talking about. Every country must have an inspection and monitoring system so that, when safety management systems are in place, it is easier for inspectors to ensure that companies are in fact safe.

[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, I will carry on and ask my colleague a question.

When the ICAO representative told us that Canada was a leader, he also said that our inspection and monitoring service was the key to our success and that our entire inspection, assessment and monitoring service must be kept in place along with the safety management system.

The Bloc Québécois has always stood behind that goal, and that is why we were against the bill as tabled by the Conservatives. This bill has been amended and changed. Now that the Conservative Party has decided to backtrack with its Motion No. 2, I have a problem. My problem is that the member thinks everything Messrs. Reinhardt and Preuss and the Transport Canada people say is gospel truth. Yet it was Mr. Preuss who, during a convention in August 2006, told his employees that staffing levels would be cut in half by 2010.

After that, the Conservatives in the committee decided to go along with us, to go along with the Bloc's recommendations, and the Liberals also supported us with respect to maintaining the inspection system. But that is not what will happen if we get rid of clause 8, which clearly defines the safety management system to enable better monitoring and inspection.

I have a problem with this clause, because I know that Transport Canada asked the government to do this. The member did not do this on his own, because in committee, he supported us.

Why do we always have to believe everything that Messrs. Reinhardt and Preuss tell us?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately at the committee there was some confusion about the number of inspectors that Canada had in the past and the number that we have today.

Initially the suggestion came from the NDP, the Bloc and a couple of the witnesses that supposedly at one time there were 1,400 inspectors. That number had gone down to somewhere around the 750 mark. In fact, later on, evidence at the committee, as the member knows, showed very clearly that of the 1,400, a very significant number had been reclassified. They were still in the system. In fact, the evidence at the end of our committee meetings made it clear that if anything, the number of inspectors that are in place today is higher than it was 10 years ago. We have not in any way taken away from that.

I wanted to point out to the member that when we were discussing the amendments at committee, we acknowledged that there was a clear role for the minister to oversee aviation. We introduced an amendment that the minister shall continue to carry out inspections of the aeronautical activities of holders of Canadian aviation documents.

We are not saying that the designated organizations are going to take over the role of government. The amendments that we accepted at committee make that very clear. At no point in time do we ever want to compromise aviation safety. The purpose of this bill is to actually enhance aviation safety considerably.

When we heard evidence from international organizations, such as ICAO, they confirmed that Canada is a leader in aviation safety and it is a leader in implementing SMS. The world is looking to us as the model to follow. I think that is encouraging news for the member. I encourage him to support this legislation.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Abbotsford made an excellent dissertation. He clarified some of the concerns that were raised by a few members in the House, specifically on the transparency, accountability and quality assurance that this legislation and the amendments being proposed will bring to air safety in our country.

As one of our Liberal colleagues mentioned earlier, we all have family. I have a grandson travelling across the country today. We are all concerned about safety. It is the government's number one priority, the safety of all Canadians and air travel.

The member for Abbotsford mentioned that Transport Canada and our airline industry is recognized around the world for its safety record. I would ask the member to expand on what the International Civil Aviation Organization is saying about safety management systems and the proposed amendments to the legislation before us today.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the International Civil Aviation Organization, which is the organization that represents all the major airlines around the world, gave testimony at the committee. When asked where Canada stands in terms of aviation safety, the response was that Canada is the leader. When we asked what safety management systems are going to do to our already excellent record, the ICAO said that they would just enhance it considerably. In fact, safety management systems are being implemented in the United States and around the world. Canada is one of the leaders and this legislation is leading legislation.

What is also remarkable is that not only does ICAO support it, not only does Transport Canada support this legislation, not only do the airlines support this legislation, but the two airline pilots associations that appeared before committee strongly support SMS. They wanted to make sure that there was strong regulatory oversight. The amendments that we adopted at the committee, as the members will know, do exactly that. We are not trying to bail out of our responsibility as government. We are insisting that we move forward to enhance aviation safety, not move backward.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member who just spoke as well as his participation in this very important debate about public policy. This ultimately could affect all of us in a very negative way if we do not do the right thing.

I am wondering how the Bloc finds it possible to support a bill that takes us further down the road to the privatization of the ability of government to monitor, inspect and participate actively in guaranteeing the safety of our transportation systems and, in this instance, the airline industry in particular.

I find this passing strange as well. We have a government that is over the top in concern about safety, particularly in our airlines with some of the moves that it is making now, such as the no-fly list, which I oppose, as it is arbitrary and has no appeal process attached to it.

We have seen a trend, first from the Liberals, who introduced the bill originally, and now we see it from the Conservatives as they push this forward more and more toward pulling government out of the responsibility that it traditionally and historically has had in this country and turning it over to the private sector. When we turn these responsibilities over to the private sector, our experience has been that the private sector begins to impose its priorities, which are more about the bottom line, cutting corners and being more cost effective and so on, and I believe that is a risk for the safety of the public and the common good.

I would ask the member to explain a bit further for me this morning why it is that the Bloc members will support the bill. They are not supporting the amendment that has been put forward today, but why is it that the Bloc will support this bill when in fact, as we see it, it is taking us down a road that really will be hard to travel back up again once we have gone in that direction?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It gives me an opportunity to clarify this important point.

Obviously, at the beginning, as I said earlier, we did not support the bill, which would establish a safety management system. To us, it was somewhat abstract, and it seemed to be beyond oversight, in terms of government responsibility. However, we satisfied ourselves that all inspections of the system done by federal inspectors would be continued.

I have read the amendment that is part of the report tabled, and it is quite important. It says "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".

This means that obligations were added that were not there in the bill at the outset. It simply referred to establishing the safety management system in a general way, even by designated organizations for companies that were able to set it up themselves. That was of considerable concern to us in the beginning, as it was to you.

However, by maintaining the minister's obligation to continue all inspections that are in fact done, we made the bill acceptable, particularly given that safety management systems have already been set up in a majority of the major airlines. It is therefore a system that has been tried and tested.

We heard testimony from pilots. They told us that it was a good system. They were reassured by the fact that their companies had their own safety management systems, that they were not simply relying on a federal inspector who makes regular visits, although I do not know exactly what the frequency of the inspector's visits are. Still, if we are completely assured that at least the same level of inspections will be maintained by the government, the system put in place once and for all should provide us with better safety in future. We certainly must not simply rely on an inspection that may be done every six months or once a year.

Therefore, with a system that is kept in place permanently, we should be even safer. We must not, however, eliminate the companies' obligation to submit to inspection by the federal inspector who is really there to check that everything is as it should be.

[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.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his intervention but, of course, I disagree with him profoundly. It is interesting that at committee stage even the Bloc members initially opposed our legislation, but once they understood what it was about, once we introduced some amendments, and once they were able to introduce some amendments, we actually came to a consensus and realized this legislation was good for Canada and aviation.

One of the things the member just mentioned was his concern about this being a disaster waiting to happen. I believe he talked about moving in a direction that will be disastrous. Then he referred to privatization. There is nothing in this bill that I can see that refers to privatization, nothing.

I challenge the member. He is not a member of the committee and may misunderstand certain parts of the legislation, but if he is speaking in the House today I am sure he has read through the legislation. I would challenge him to point me to the sections which actually move Canadian aviation in the direction of privatization, move the whole issue of safety management into the private sphere. I do not see it. Maybe he does.

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

Mr. Speaker, right off the bat I want to say to the member that I am always offended in this place when somebody suggests that just because a member does not sit on a particular committee he cannot intelligently participate in the debates that happen in the House.

I represent my constituents here. I was elected in the same election that the member was, so I have every right to get up in the House and state my comments and concerns on any issue that comes before the House in debate. I resent any comment that I somehow do not have the right or knowledge of the information necessary to put my perspective on the record.

The member for Burnaby—New Westminster, the hardest working member on the committee, has informed us consistently and constantly over the last few months as this bill worked its way through committee, so I have no difficulty putting the NDP position forward.

I say to the member that if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if it looks like a duck, then it is a duck. We may not be talking privatization here, but everything in this bill smacks of and speaks of the privatization of the safety oversight of our airline industry, and we oppose that.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I tend to agree with the member. One does not have to be on a committee to be aware of some of the issues.

The member referred in his speech to alleged safety and environmental problems of an airport in the middle of downtown Toronto. I am aware there is an airport there. It is not exactly in the middle of downtown Toronto. The island airport is south of Toronto. Air Canada has regular flights to the island airport, as well as Porter Airlines, which is new. We are talking about another competitive situation.

In view of the fact that he has raised this as a relevant issue with regard to safety issues, is he aware of any specific example of an accident, alert, complaint or anything that would indicate there was any real safety concerns with regard to the Toronto Island airport?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have seen the Toronto Island airport. It is located right in the heart of downtown Toronto. One cannot get to that airport without flying over major parts of that very important city in the province of Ontario. The potential for a disaster to happen is definitely there, particularly if we go down the road of turning over safety oversight in this industry to the companies themselves. There is only one company operating out of that airport right now and it is trying desperately to grab on to some piece of that industry, which is very competitive and very difficult.

Given a choice between hiring more people and making sure the best qualified people are working on those airplanes and bringing in people who are not quite as qualified in order to save money is where the privatization happens. It seems that the Conservative members do not understand, and thousands and thousands of people are put at risk in the heart of downtown--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[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.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

We will have to move on to questions and comments now as the time for the member's speech has expired.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for Timmins—James Bay for always being engrossed in his material and for delivering some of the better speeches that we hear in this place. He is always on topic, very informative and interesting.

In the last 10 or 20 years, the deregulation of the airline industry has had a huge impact on remote parts of the country. Northern Ontario has suffered due to the lack of service that has ultimately transpired. We used to have an excellent government operated airline, norOntair, that connected in a safe and coordinated way all the major communities in northern Ontario. Since the deregulation and the pulling back of government from the airline industry, we have found we no longer have the service that we need and deserve. In fact, airports are barely hanging on.

If we parallel that with this move from the Conservatives to deregulate, where safety and safety oversight is concerned, what concerns does my colleague have about these?

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has nailed the discussion here. Deregulation is based on the principle that there is enough of a market to allow more competition. Areas not being adequately served right now will actually be better served with increased competition and increased deregulation.

The reality is there are very few profitable sectors in terms of airline transportation in Canada today, where there are enough numbers to generate the kind of capacity building needed. With large level deregulation, we will end up with one or two giant carriers that pick up the key routes and the smaller ones will be left by the wayside. This is the way markets work, but is that necessarily the work of government?

The vast majority of our country, in terms of land mass, does not exist between the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, although certain politicians believe that is the full extent of our country. In fact, the vast majority of our country is composed of outlying regions that are harder to service. Those areas are not economically unviable. For example, exploration is key in my region, with its immense resources in diamonds, gold and copper. To bring in either value added or new business, people have to be able to fly there. It is not good enough to fly them three hours away and then have them drive the rest of the way. That does not work.

We had excellent air service in northern Ontario. The air service covered off all the key communities so people could travel and businesses could develop. That was lost by a decision made by then Premier Mike Harris and by the government when it walked away on its obligation, not to continually fund airports but to ensure a basic infrastructure program so municipal, rural and regional airports could access it.

I want to get back to the issue of the Earlton airport and the Kirkland Lake airport. These are key examples of the kind of airports across the country, which serve important links. Right now they are fending for themselves. They have been downloaded to the municipalities and their ability to continue to provide needed service is highly questionable.

Where is the government vision for rural airports across the country?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for a minute I thought we were talking about whether airline flights served Bits & Bites or Oreo cookies. We are talking about air safety and the bill before us. Every witness who appeared before committee said that Canada had the safest aviation safety system in the world. Does the member agree with that or not?

He makes it sound like planes are falling out of the sky and inspectors are getting pink slips. There is a commitment in the bill for a robust inspection system, which his party supported. Nothing has changed. It is going to be better.

Does the member agree that Canada has the safest aviation system in the world?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent question, but I would like to pose it for the member. Does he believe we have the best rail service protection in the world for the public? We in the NDP certainly think there are serious problems.

The serious problems have to go back to Transport Canada. Transport Canada has the obligation to ensure that we have the best airline record in the world. Fortunately we are not talking about tragedies that have happened, but about how to prevent the tragedies from happening.

[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--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

[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, I want to ask my friend a question regarding the whistleblower piece she just talked about. An article in the Toronto Star of June 23, 2006, states:

More than three-dozen airline pilots, mechanics, air traffic controllers and Transport Canada employees say they are afraid to speak out about serious safety concerns in Canadian skies—an industry code of silence that has triggered calls for whistleblower protection aimed at aviation workers.

While U.S. airline workers have a federal law upholding their right to speak out without fear of reprisals, their Canadian colleagues say sharing what they know would jeopardize their livelihoods and careers in aviation.

Let me give an example. Four Air Canada Jazz mechanics were suspended in June of last year when they warned of poor maintenance of the airplanes that threatened passenger safety. The pilots, various mechanics and air traffic controllers are saying that the management of the airlines would rather not know about any of these safety issues. There is a long list of information saying there is pressure to cut corners, something that all mechanics encounter in the industry as a known stigma, and other mechanics have said there are serious problems. They are over-burdened and underfunded. There are somewhat inefficient government regulatory bodies, et cetera.

Why is it that the U.S. prohibits retaliation? It has very clear legislation, called AIR 21, directed at the airline industry. It prohibits employers from retaliating against employees involved in raising concerns of reporting violations of airline safety rules and regulations.

Why is it that Canada does not have such legislation? There are so many examples of airline mechanics and others being fired. Is that fair? Would this bill make it even worse?

[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.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my NDP colleague and I will forgive him his lack of familiarity with the bill because he does not sit on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. In particular, he spoke against the safety management systems in the present bill that are not being eliminated by any amendment currently before us.

We in the Bloc Québécois had the feeling that we ought not to eliminate all aircraft inspections. That is why the NDP and the Bloc moved an amendment specifying that the Minister had to maintain a program for the oversight and surveillance of aviation safety.

I think that this amendment, which is part of the committee's report, assures us that the government will not be divesting itself of its responsibilities even though a safety management system is being put in place. Rather, I believe he is talking about the designated organizations that he would like to eliminate from the bill with his last amendment.

The minister's obligation to do all these inspections is being retained. Whatever safety management system is put in place that enhances safety, the government will not be divesting itself of any responsibility and will thus be protecting the safety of the entire population. I would like to hear my colleague on that subject.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to hear that the member opposite from the Bloc is satisfied with the NDP amendment. I think, when we peruse the various amendments, there has been a sincere attempt to fix a very flawed piece of legislation.

I am also concerned that in response to a number of good pieces of legislation that pass here, some sit for endless amounts of time without being implemented. I am not absolutely sure that we understand, as a House, the motivating factors behind why these bills have repeatedly come to this House. My concern lies in who is influencing the public policy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I and I think all Canadians appreciate the presentation by the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, and all the other members who have spoken here today, the members for London—Fanshawe, Trinity—Spadina and Sault Ste. Marie.

NDP members are standing in this House, and it is curious, but important to note, that the Conservatives are not speaking to this because they are embarrassed themselves about where the government is going on this.

The member from Hamilton referenced an excellent article in The Hamilton Spectator entitled “Dangerous Skies”. Judge Virgil Moshansky, the original justice who conducted the Dryden, Ontario investigation that became an inquiry into aviation safety, said the following:

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.

Would the member tell me who Canadians should believe: the Conservative government or Justice Virgil Moshansky?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is such an easy question. This judge was the person who thoroughly investigated a very serious accident case, and in doing so, enlightened himself to a great degree on the issues in the airline industry, particularly the issues and challenges faced at the level of safety. I certainly, without equivocation, would stand with the opinions of that particular judge.

[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—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

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

Mr. Speaker, again we have the NDP standing up in this corner of the House and actually fighting for safer air travel in Canada. It is surprising to me that only the NDP members seem to be standing up on this issue against the Conservative government. This is an extremely important issue.

Since the Conservatives are not standing up to defend the absolutely reckless and irresponsible actions of their government to put Canadian families in dangerous situations because a few lobbyists told them to do it, I am going to take the opportunity to read into the record more witness accounts that were given at the transport committee.

We have Mrs. Kirsten Brazier, the president of Dax Air, who came and testified. 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.

She comes from northwest Ontario which suffered in the Dryden air crash. Ken Rubin, a public interest researcher, said:

Bill C-6, clause 43, places air safety reports in a permanent secrecy category...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.

Canadians will never get to learn about the safety violations that put their family members in peril. It is absolutely absurd.

My question for the hon. member is this. Why are the Conservatives pressing ahead with something that witnesses have told them is irresponsible, reckless and puts people's lives in danger?

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns that my colleague in the NDP expressed about air safety. However, in view of the fact that these safety management systems already exist in actual practice, one of the things that we wanted to ensure in committee was that the government oversight and inspections would continue. This is not always the case now. This provision was added in response to the representations made by federal inspectors. We also added a detailed description of these famous safety management systems.

Insofar as the necessary safety and protection are concerned, this bill is effective and adds to the safety we should have. I would like to know what the hon. member’s views are on this.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that there are a hundred vacancies right now for the positions that Canadians entrust for oversight inspectors.

Instead of the government put its time and money into a flawed bill, it should be getting out and putting the word out that it needs people in these positions. It makes sense. Why does the government not hire the hundred new inspectors?

It is the same with rail safety. I have no idea and I cannot fathom why the government is so focused on selling out privacy, freedom of information, whistleblower protection and in the end the safety of Canadians, and not spending more time hiring the hundred inspectors that we need to make sure that our skies are safe.

[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?

[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 will answer with a question. I suppose it is the same mechanism that has encouraged CN to implement safety measures throughout Canada, especially in B.C., where rivers have been irreparably damaged by derailment after derailment.

I am glad my hon. colleague feels safe at the back of an airplane, but I suggest that is because of the rules we have had, which the government is about to change.

I also add that if my colleague feels the government is that interested in safety, then why have the hundreds of positions for aviation inspectors, which have not been advertised but they exist, have not been filled at the moment?

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the committee heard from a lot of people who came forward. The Moshansky report on the crash that happened in Dryden in 1989 has been mentioned many times in the chamber today. I was not on the airplane, but that is my home town and I was on the site shortly after that. I was the mayor of Dryden, serving 10 years later, and we did a memorial to that, so I know the issue well. I met Justice Moshansky a number of times.

What came out of testimony from people from my riding, who travelled to the committee on DaxAir, based out of Red Lake, was that a number of small commuters, a number of small operators, a large number in northern Ontario, were literally out of sight, out of mind. They are serving the communities in the north. They are under pressure constantly to adjust the regulations so the operators can make more money. The pilots and the passengers could be put at risk if this is allowed.

What would the member say about the small operators? When we use the safety management system, we do not have inspectors and we leave them to look after themselves. The problems they can get into—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I have to leave enough time for the member for Victoria to answer the question.

The hon. member for Victoria.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I could have explained the NDP position any better. That is why we hold the position we hold. I agree that problem has not been considered.

[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--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I have to move on to questions and comments. The hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

[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, 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.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that Judge Moshansky is the one who approved of the safety management systems.

My hon. friend from Victoria, who spoke before us, said that just because government or somebody says something it still does not make it so. Well, the opposite is true as well. Just because the NDP members read something into something does not make it so, and that is what they have doing all day throughout the debate.

I will point out once again that safety is an airline's bottom line. If it violates safety, its bottom line will be affected directly. However, I will point out one thing that keeps coming up. Members keep talking about the 100 vacant inspector positions. What they do not say is that there are 873 inspector positions and that 100 empty positions at any one time has been a relatively constant number for the last number of years through attrition and so on, and in fact the vacancies are advertised and this is not an abnormal situation. To take it to their numbers, there are still 773 aviation safety inspectors on the job.

I feel pretty safe and I think most people here do. The NDP will never get the relationship about risk management, safety and the practical common sense bottom line.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what we do not get, will not get and will not tolerate is any reduction in the public's right to fly safely in a safe air transportation system. Any efforts to undermine or diminish, in any way, shape or form, the safety of Canadians and our air transportation system, we will work against and we will in fact condemn.

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.

Aeronautics Act

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that we are not going to see any Conservative MPs getting up to speak to this issue. They themselves are embarrassed about how reprehensible, how reckless and how irresponsible this bill and the Conservative amendment are, so they just do not speak.

We are into the third day of debate at report stage and we do not see Conservatives defending their position. They cannot because it is an indefensible position to put ordinary Canadian families in the kind of peril the Conservatives seem to want to put them in. What we saw with the railway system, the Conservatives now want to do with the airlines.

I was interested in the comments that were made in committee by Kirsten Brazier, the president of Dax Air. She was actually brought to the committee by the member for Kenora. She said the following:

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....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.

When company spokespeople are coming forward and saying they are being forced to cut corners on safety, why would the Conservatives put forward an irresponsible bill when we know that this is essentially the problem?

We are putting Canadians' lives in danger. Instead of trying to rectify the problems, the near misses and the many near accidents that we are facing, instead of coping very responsibly with those, the Conservatives are doing exactly the opposite and giving the most irresponsible companies a get out of jail free card.

Why does the member for Windsor West think that the Conservatives are taking this clearly irresponsible action?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster in his work on this bill.

Quite frankly, I am troubled by the fact that the Conservatives want to let corporate criminals get away. If the bill passes, there will be an adjustment process, a fixing of the problem that allows them to not receive any type of penalty for the injurious effects that have cost passenger safety, and potentially lives. That is unacceptable.

Canadians expect to get good products and good services that are safe and fair for their hard-earned money. We heard this before when we got rid of the tax deductibility that the Liberals allowed for the environment and fines. Good companies were coming to me and saying that some companies had business plans to rip off the system, either by environmental degradation or with some types of business management systems that were counter to the actual competition, such as subsidizing through illegal practices. Some companies would use that as a subsidy to take out the good people in the system.

That is what is unacceptable about this. If there needs to be a fix in the system, it is to bring greater accountability, which is what we want. What they are doing is unacceptable.

[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, their ideology has taken over. Their ideology is to get government and regulations and any type of accountability that protects consumers out of the way. That is why we have not seen the review of the Competition Act which was supposed to happen. That is why we see CN and the rail system get a similar pass. And the Conservatives are giving that to the airline executives and management which really should be held accountable if they have practices that hurt customers and the general public.

[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, I appreciate the work the member for Parkdale—High Park has done on infrastructure, pressing for urban transit and a new deal for cities, as well as the work she has been doing on behalf of her constituents and for consumers. This is very much a consumer issue. Essentially, we have the Conservatives pushing forward with this bad bill, unparalleled bad choice of policy.

There was a report in the Hamilton Spectator this morning by Fred Vallance-Jones, who is one of the foremost journalists in the country looking into air safety issues. Part of the article quotes Richard Balnis, who is a senior research officer with the Canadian Union of Public Employees. He says:

This is an incredible deal that has been struck with the airlines that Transport Canada is saying, 'We cannot oversee you anymore, so we're going to trust you to do it yourself, and the quid pro quo is we are not going to enforce against you, but more importantly, we're going to put a secrecy cone over the both of us”.

This article goes on to reiterate the investigation of air safety by the Hamilton Spectator, the Toronto Star and The Record of the Waterloo region. It says:

—gave publicity to the government's plans for SMS, many groups appeared before the Commons transport committee to warn Canada could be heading for an aviation catastrophe. The newspapers' investigation found more than 80,000 passengers were put at risk over a five- year period from 2001 to 2005 when planes came dangerously close to each other in Canadian skies. It also found rising numbers of mechanical defects and lax safety regulations.

We have the appalling record that Transport Canada has, only through luck, avoided a catastrophe certainly in the last few years. Essentially we have this excellent investigation done by The Toronto Star, the Hamilton Spectator and the Kitchener Waterloo The Record. We have a case by case examination of the number of passengers that came close to tragedy.

Why would the Conservatives proceed with a plan like this when they know that Canadian families are absolutely opposed to putting their loved ones in danger and when all the evidence shows that we have less and less security in our air space, less and less enforcement of safety regulations and fewer and fewer flight inspectors? We have 100 vacant positions the Conservatives refuse to fill.

In all that dynamic, why would the Conservatives push forward with what is exactly contrary to the public interest and to what Canadians want and need?

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

Mr. Speaker, why would the government not act in the public good? The public expects not only effective regulation, but oversight and enforcement of those regulations.

I also argue that the government has generally abandoned the public good when it comes to infrastructure investment. I know in my own neighbourhood of Parkdale—High Park, due to lacking a very small amount of money, public swimming pools are closing and the community is being abandoned in its struggle to maintain this infrastructure that is good for the community and for children and prevents disease and crime.

Why would the government not invest in this kind of infrastructure? Why will the government not act in the public good to have effective oversight of our transportation sector, which is exactly what Canadians expect from our federal government?

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Conservatives, at some point, will actually defend this deplorable, reckless and irresponsible approach of gutting aviation safety. I hoped one would stand up. Hopefully, they are not all sheep.

I would like to quote a poll of federal aviation inspectors. They have found that nearly three-quarters of inspectors believe a major airline accident is looming because of increasingly lax safety oversight.

When three-quarters of the federal aviation inspectors are saying a major airline accident is looming, does the member not believe that the government should be heeding those who understand best what is important to maintain the safety in Canada's airlines?

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly what we have here is a case of ideology trumping not only common sense, but trumping the public good. It is hard to believe that any hon. member in the House could defend the bill that the government has put forward. It is not surprising that the Conservatives are not rising to their feet to defend this legislation.

Clearly, it is not in the public good. I appreciate my hon. colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster and all the fine work that he has done to bring the weaknesses of this bill into the public domain.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sad to see that the Conservatives are refusing to stand and defend their position on this bill. We are supposed to have a democratic debate in the House of Commons. The Conservatives have put something together that, at the very least, one can say is dangerously reckless and yet they are refusing to defend their actions. They are absolutely refusing to stand and say why they want to be dangerously reckless. It may be to increase CEO's bonuses, who knows, but they could at least give some reason for their recklessness, their irresponsibility and their complete disregard for the families of ordinary Canadians who will be getting on flights soon of airlines that will no longer be regulated or, if they are regulated and there are internal problems, we will never know about them.

I want to come back to the presentation by the member from Skeena—Bulkley Valley who is certainly one of the most active MPs in the House. He works extremely diligently on behalf of his constituency here in Ottawa and then he goes back to Skeena—Bulkley Valley and flies regularly throughout that vast riding, about a quarter of British Columbia. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is extremely diligent about getting out to his riding so he flies a great deal, not just to Ottawa but around his riding on the weekends when he goes back to it.

We have a comment from Ken Rubin, who is a public interest researcher, who said the following before the transport committee:

[The] Transport Minister...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--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I have to cut the member off so I can allow the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley to respond to the question.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the concepts that was brought forward, and this I believe happened at committee in testimony, was the balance between what the industry was calling for, which was some sort of notion of streamlining and some cost effectiveness measures. To most Canadians, if we were able to propose to them, if this bill were to pass, that there would be some marginal savings on an airline tickets, most Canadians would say that should be considered but the cost of that small savings would be in some order of safety, some magnitude of Canadians' safety in getting on the airplane.

What is safety worth to people? What is safety worth to parliamentarians when we are deciding what bills should go forward and what bills should not and which concepts should go forward and which ones should not? Clearly, it is very difficult.

We had people from the health department in front of us at the environment committee some time ago and I did not know this but the government uses a formula to decide the value of a Canadian life. Apparently, in Health Canada anyway, it is $5 million. That is what the life of a Canadian is worth when the government is trying to estimate how many lives are lost or saved. This was in the area of pollution prevention.

It would be fascinating if some of the Conservatives would stand and defend their position.

We have a government advocating for some measure which, I suspect, is an ideology toward a deregulated form of business where there is little or no oversight for regulations and restrictions are made up by the industry themselves, some laissez-faire free hand, the invisible hand of the marketplace stepping into an issue like health and safety, to passenger safety.

This seems so ridiculous, particularly when it is presented in the light of the day. My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster has been working diligently to ascertain the qualities of any of the motions that are being considered within the bill, to improve them and to try to work with other members of Parliament on the committee, within government and within the opposition parties and has found few partnerships that were willing.

The member from Eglinton—Lawrence, I believe, has some further and future ambitions and can only see in his starry eyes the executives within the biggest corporations that run our airline industry but cannot see for a moment that the trade-off between the security of individual people, who I suppose he represents, cannot be seen for this other ambition.

Clearly, we need to rebalance the scales and design a bill that we can all be proud of, not one that plays to some selected audiences.

[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—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. Before moving on to questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Citizenship and Immigration.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver Island North.

[Catherine Bell, NDP, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster for his hard work on this file and for keeping it alive, and also my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas for his remarks that he just made.

However, I also want to touch on some things that my other colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley mentioned. He talked about the north coast and the air taxi industry where loggers, miners and fishermen have to use air taxis to get back and forth to work. That is something that is very common in the riding of Vancouver Island North.

Several years ago in 2005, a small airplane crashed into the ocean and all five of the loggers who were on their way to work lost their lives, but a very brave woman, one of the spouses of the men who were killed, has continued to raise awareness about air traffic safety and what is happening in this industry. She has tried to come to the committee and make a presentation, but has so far not been successful.

Therefore, on behalf of her, her name is Kirsten Stevens, I bring this issue up in the House to talk about air safety. What she said to me was that the concerns are very real. There is a general feeling in the industry that the air taxi sector suffers from a considerable lack of effective oversight and enforcement.

Many concerns which were addressed by Transport Canada in the safety of air taxi operations task force's final report of 1998, which related to the problem of occupational health and safety as well as oversight in this sector, have never been corrected.

This sector suffers from a high accident rate. I find that appalling. My question for my hon. colleague from Burnaby—Douglas is this. When we see the amendments and this act which is asking for more oversight by the industry, and in this case the industry is not living up to the commitments now, what happens when they are in full control of it? Would he not think that we need more oversight and not less?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Vancouver Island North for her question and for representing Ms. Stevens and her family so well on this particular issue. They have gone through what no family should have to go through, losing a loved one in an airplane accident, and they know the difficulty of that.

They know the problems associated with that and to their credit, they have worked to ensure that the same thing does not happen to other families and other workers who depend on airplanes to get to and from work, to do their work, or who work on those planes themselves.

It is very commendable and admirable that despite their loss and their grief at the loss of their own family member, they take up the cause and seek a solution to this.

The member is absolutely right that we do not need fewer regulations, laxer regulations or looser regulations. We need to make sure that we have tough regulations and enforced regulations, and the inspectors to do the enforcement. Otherwise, we are letting people down. We are letting people down like Ms. Stevens and her family, and we are letting workers down who make their living on airlines or providing these kinds of services.

We cannot afford to do that and if government is not about ensuring some modicum of standards for Canadians and serving the Canadian public by ensuring that our safety is a priority, then what should government be about? It just seems so logical that this is a job for the Canadian government, to ensure that safety is a priority for the airline industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague and I was moved by the whole discussion on what we have seen in terms of railway safety and the abysmal record that has developed in Canada over the last number of years with railway accidents.

We are surprised, given the incredible number of accidents, that we have not seen a greater level of tragedy, yet this seems to be a model that is being promoted for airlines, where there should be a zero level allowed for accidents because of what obviously would be entailed.

I would like to ask the hon. member this question. How does he compare the situation that we have seen with rail transportation oversight with airline oversight?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the example of the railway industry is the wrong example. We have seen far too many accidents and lives lost in recent years because of rail accidents. My concern is that the safety standards that we need are not in place, are not in force, and we do not want to see that happen in the airline industry.

[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—

[An hon. member]

The Canadian Union of Public Employees.

[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.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the various parties and I think you will find unanimous consent to the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-6 report stage Motion No. 2 shall be withdrawn.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

(Motion agreed to)

(Motion No. 2 withdrawn)

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 4 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 9.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 10.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on Motion No. 10 stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The next question is on Motion No. 12. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions at the report stage of the bill. Call in the members.

Before the taking of the vote:

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.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The question is on Motion No. 4. If Motion No. 4 is agreed to, the vote will also apply to Motion No. 14. A negative vote on Motion No. 4 requires the question to be put on Motions Nos. 5, 7 and 8.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #210

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motion No. 4 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 5. If Motion No. 5 is agreed to, the vote will also apply to Motion No. 14.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you were to seek it, you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to Motion No. 5 currently before the House, in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, and also all the other motions in his name, namely Motions Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #211

(The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #214

(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #215

(The House divided on Motion No. 11, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #216

(The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #217

(The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #212

(The House divided on Motion No. 15, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #213

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motions Nos. 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 lost.

The next question is on Motion No. 6.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think if you were to seek it, you might find unanimous consent that the House would pass, unanimously, Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 16.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is it agreed that each of these motions will carry unanimously?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 16 carried.

(Motions Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 16 agreed to)

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

moved that the bill be concurred in at the report stage with further amendments.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #218

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.