Bill C-7 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Aeronautics Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for London—Fanshawe for dealing with the concerns we have with the bill in such a comprehensive way.

I, like other members of our caucus, want to thank our former transport critic, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, for the tremendous amount of work he has done on this bill and for bringing to public exposure the flaws and the concerns that we have on this bill.

I thank the member today for reiterating and emphasizing some very key points that need to be brought forward in this debate and emphasizing why it is that we in the NDP moved this motion for the bill to go back to the committee. We believe that it requires a further examination by the committee and by witnesses who have concerns about the bill.

I have a question for the member for London—Fanshawe on one element of the bill. One of the concerns that we have on this bill is what is called a fatigue risk management system. This is a very big issue because we know in the airline industry, it is basically a 24 hours, 7 days a week, 365 days a year operation. Collective agreements are in place but the protection of workers from fatigue, measures that need to be prescribed clearly to ensure there is not overtime and overwork in terms of people getting into a position of fatigue, is something that is very important, and I think the travelling public would agree with that.

What we have learned from the bill is that this new fatigue risk management system is actually something that will move us away from the Canada Labour Code dealing with employment standards, which is part III of the Labour Code, and part II, which deals with occupational health and safety.

As people who work in the airline industry, they would be covered by the Canada Labour Code. The code exists for federally regulated employees. However, through this bill we would see a departure from that and we would see a special little system supposedly designed for workers in the aeronautics industry.

I wonder if the member would comment on our concern about moving away from the Canada Labour Code and setting up a boutique kind of proposal that will cover only this sector of workers. To me, that is something we should be concerned about because we are all worried about the amount of overtime people must do now. People are working way too many hours, and particularly in the airline industry this would be a concern, where issues of public safety are so prevalent.

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

Mr. Speaker, the best answer to my colleague's question is to look at what has happened in this country in the recent past. I would go back to those accidents regarding rail freight and the impact those accidents had on not just the environment and the economy, but on workers. It seems to me that fatigue was an element in those accidents.

Within the past few months, we saw rail workers go out on strike trying desperately to get the attention of their government to say that working conditions were not right, that they were ripe for a series of accidents and that they were very concerned about themselves, their families, the travelling public and safety among rail workers.

The response of the government was to write back to work legislation. The response of the government was to dismiss the concerns of those very responsible workers and say that their concerns did not matter, that they should go back to work and that it has had complaints from people who matter far more to it than the travelling public and the workers who actually ensure that the freight and the economy continue to move.

When we start to apply this to airline workers, that theory is compounded. I know there have been in the past very clear rules in regard to the number of hours a crew could work. If they are tired and if they are excluded from the Canada Labour Code, then it behooves their bosses, I believe, to force more time upon them. We know that if there are fewer employees working more overtime, the overall cost to the employer is less. We simply cannot allow that. On our highways, truckers who are exhausted are creating a level of danger for the public.

I would say that this new regime, this fatigue risk management system, is simply unacceptable. We must have the Canada Labour Code in place to ensure that crews are safe, that passengers are safe and that our airways are safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so delighted to listen to the voices of those who have not studied the bill.

I am wondering whether the NDP position is now one that says that the government has fallen through on bringing a bill before the committee and giving the committee members an opportunity to shape the bill, which is what we do in a minority Parliament, we actually shape the bill.

I am wondering why the NDP members would say on the one hand that they applaud the work of their colleague on the committee, the tremendous work that the committee has done and then highlight the improvements that have been debated, discussed, voted upon, brought forward and now in the real bill, and then on the other hand say that even though all this has been done they will vote against it.

What is it about NDP logic that says that every time we take a step forward, we must take two steps back so that we can complain about the fact that somebody is moving forward?

I find it absolutely fascinating that the House leader for the NDP would repeat things that are totally untrue. Does she expect, in asking her colleague, who has never attended one of those meetings, that if she repeats something that is clearly untrue, the general public will believe it to be something that it is not? Is it part of the NDP approach to engage in debate for the next election and send out messages that have nothing to do with reality?

The reality is that we have an aviation industry and an industry that involves many owner-operated flights, small companies, all of them concerned with aviation safety. It is part of the business. We do not expand the exercise by ensuring that everybody suffers an incident or an accident. The NDP members do not seem to grasp that. They also do not seem to grasp that all the improvements that their critic participated in bringing forward are ones that the Canadian public wants.

Is it the NDP's position that it will thumb its nose at everything the Canadian public wants? Is that what it wants to go into an election with?

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleague that I am not the House leader. If he has a question for the House leader, I suggest he ask her.

In response to his question, I was in the House and listened very carefully to the debate on this bill and the arguments made by my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster. It seems to me that during the debate there was a rush of frenetic need to get this pushed through very quickly. The hon. member opposite was part of that.

I suppose when one undermines the safety of Canadians, by not ensuring 100 inspectors are available, one would like to push things through rather quickly so the Canadian public, which he seems to be so concerned about, will not notice. I find that quite reprehensible.

In response to the other part of his question about air safety, I am sure Mr. Hunter Harrison was very clear in terms of his vociferous assurances that when it came to rail safety, he would maintain the safety of that system. Yet we see very clearly that when push comes to shove, when the bottom line is affected, the profits of a company seem to have far more interest for those in charge than the safety of the people depending on it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I never miss an opportunity to give the public another opportunity to understand what we are debating.

The bill is about aviation safety. I note the NDP members have focused as much attention on railway safety as they have on everything else.

Whenever members of Parliament are concerned with the security and safety of the travelling public, it is always to be commended. This is why the committee members should be commended. They studied a bill for more than six months.

It is true that we brought an exhaustive list of people before the committee, an exhaustive list of interested industry operators, of union representatives, of professional organizations and of interested third parties. It is true that many of them said they liked the bill. Some of them even said they wanted to add some more. Others even said that we could improve the legislation by doing certain things. Everyone of them was listened to with deference and respect, and their input was incorporated in the amendments, now the bill. They are all in the bill.

It is verging on the dishonest, but I do not want to use that word too heavily, to suggest that the input people had as witnesses in the committee, before the committee members looked at the amendments, is the view that should prevail today.

For example, referring to Judge Moshansky is not very direct or honest. Judge Moshansky said he thought we should do the following. We did what he suggested. It is in the bill.

It is unfortunate and verging on the dishonest to refer to the lack of inspectors when we have amendments in the bill that must ensure the financing, the training and the deployment of inspectors to guarantee the safety mechanisms that we propose as standards. The members have already acknowledged they are there. The standards have been upgraded. The resources to ensure they be in place and supervised appropriately are there. That is in the bill.

It is verging on the dishonest to suggest that we are now talking about a bill that would impose extra work on professionals. They are governed by collective agreements. They are governed by their own professional code of conduct. They are governed by the Canada Labour Code, which is not superceded by any proposed amendment.

If NDP members want to kill a bill in which they participated in shaping for six months, then they should say to the general public that they want to be obstructionists, that they should give themselves a different name. They can do that. It is okay. I do not have any problem with it. However, it is verging on the dishonest for the members of the NDP to make the suggestions they have about the members of the Bloc and the Liberal Party, who believe in making Parliament work, who listen to the general public and who take into consideration the voice of experts in the field and then structure legislation.

Yes, it was with the cooperation of the government members. I know there are those who think we should take partisanship to the extreme and say that everything the Conservatives do is bad. I commiserate with them because it is as a result of the NDP manoeuvring in the last Parliament that we have the government we have today. However, I will not fall into the temptation of getting into partisanship by believing that.

I only say that it is absolutely crucial, when members of Parliament gather together for more than six months and iron out all the difficulties, whether they are real or perceived, that we present the bill to the House and give it at least one more chance. We went through this, it is called report stage. The amendments that members did not like or did not think they could put forward, could have been brought in a committee of the whole to get support of other members of Parliament to give it one last chance. We did that.

This bill sailed through at report stage. Now we have all those complaints from members of the NDP, the new whine party. They are saying that notwithstanding everything the rest of the general public represented by legitimately elected individuals think, it does not matter. They want to hold up the bill. They want to ensure the bill does not get approval of the House. That is okay.

If members have a firm ideological position based either on a good solid footing or on whatever comes up on the day, that is okay too. However, we should not try to project it as being something more than that. It is nothing more than obstructionism and it cannot be thought of as anything else.

The NDP is not interested in aviation safety. It is not interested in the security and the job security of those people working in the aerospace and aviation industry. It is not interested in the business interests of Canadian enterprises, be they big or small. If it were, the bill would have passed the House last June. If it were, this bill would have passed last week when it was reintroduced as part of the negotiation to bring back bills at the same stages when the House last adjourned.

Members of the House can disagree with each other. It is unfortunate that we have come to a stage where we want to express our differences by calling others liars. We are not. It is verging on dishonesty to suggest implicitly or explicitly that there was collusion, in private, in secrecy, on this bill. The minister who brought the bill forward appeared before the committee two or three times. I enjoyed giving him a hard time, but that is what the process is for. Therefore, if anyone had a problem with the minister's bill, we brought him and his officials before the committee over and over again. There was no secrecy.

The plan was to have members of Parliament structure this bill. Members of Parliament have structured the bill. The NDP, while it takes great credit for having done great work, has just said, with the last several interventions, that it is not part of the process. It certainly is not an honest part of the process. I wonder whether the members of the NDP will wake up and decide to make the House work. If they do not want to do that, perhaps they should all resign en masse and do the Canadian public a favour.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had to smile a bit while listening to the diatribe from the member for Eglinton—Lawrence. He is very good at giving lectures to other members of the House about doing their job. That comes from a member of a caucus which at a critical moment when we had a job to do, and that was to decide whether or not to vote confidence in the Conservative government's direction and whether or not to vote for the mini-budget just a few days ago sat on their hands and did nothing. In effect, he abdicated his responsibility. Talk about not doing his job. There are some glaring examples.

I am astounded that the member would rise in the House and be cynical about the legitimate and good faith attempts of the NDP to hold up this bill. Yes, we did that in June. We fought tooth and nail to hold up this bill because we thought it was a very bad bill. Based on what our member had done in the committee, based on the witnesses that were heard, based on what we heard from workers who will be affected by this bill, we understood that this was not a good bill.

If the member opposite thinks that it is a fine bill, then that is his prerogative, but I find it to be the height of cynicism to attack our party because we dare to have the courage to stand up in this House and say that this bill is not a good bill.

We have given some very clear reasons why the bill is not good. It is not because we are not interested in the aviation industry or the people who work in that industry. It is precisely because of our concerns about the workers in that industry, about where the industry is going overall that we have decided we need to blow the whistle on this bill.

The member may disagree with us, which is fine. I totally respect that. But come on, his note of cynicism that somehow we are not doing our job or that we are lying is outrageous.

It is only fair to say that we have legitimate concerns about this bill. Our role as parliamentarians is to stand in this House and voice our concerns, which is more than what the members of his party did when it came to the Speech from the Throne or the mini-budget. The Liberals were silent. When it came time for a vote they were silent. We take our responsibility very seriously and I am proud of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded since we are getting into lecturing and sort of religious illusions that we also serve who wait and sit. She might think that is cynical, but the fact of the matter is I asked her and her colleagues to tell me why she would suggest that there are not going to be inspectors when in fact that is built into the bill.

Why does she suggest that the Canada Labour Code does not apply when that is an untruth of the worst variety? Why does she deliberately say that we did not listen to witnesses--and I am talking about us; I am not talking about the government side--as she indicated that the opposition members worked together in order to bring this to fruition?

Then she says we did not incorporate what CUPE or other labour unions or professional organizations suggested. We brought all of those amendments forward for the scrutiny of members who take their jobs seriously, and I dare say yes, even her party's member on the committee. That is why I am absolutely flabbergasted that on the one hand she praises his work, who worked to ensure that we came up with this bill and then on the other hand en masse members of that party would turn around and say, “We don't care what our member did; we don't care what anybody else did; we are going to vote against the bill“--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order. I hate to interrupt the member for Eglinton—Lawrence in full flight, but the time has come for statements by members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today unfortunately to express that we will not be supporting this bill. Substantial progress was made at the committee stage, but Bill C-7 still emphasizes cutting costs rather than improving safety standards. There can be no compromise when it comes to airline safety.

Bill C-7 constitutes a major change in how aviation safety will be addressed in Canada for years to come. It would enshrine in aviation safety the safety management system, or SMS, as part of Transport Canada's agenda to implement SMS in all modes of transportation, sometimes with disastrous effects as we have seen in the case of rail SMS with the escalating number of train derailments. We have all seen terrible examples of train derailments and other safety problems on the railway system. We believe that the introduction of SMS has been a factor.

Specifically, SMS is intended to allow the industry to increasingly decide the level of risk that those in the industry are willing to accept in their operations, rather than abide by the level of safety set by the minister acting solely in the public interest.

SMS is also designed to help Transport Canada deal with declining resources and high numbers of projected inspector retirements. As the former chair of the government operations committee, I know that there has been and continues to be an examination of the generational change in all of the public sector positions.

This is an opportunity now for the people who are in these jobs today to pass their skills, experience, knowledge and expertise on to the younger generation who are looking for more skilled and better paying jobs.

I spoke earlier today about the disastrous layoffs that are taking place in the manufacturing sector. Young people are trying to support themselves and their families. They are trying to pay their mortgages or their rent, but the jobs that would pay them enough to be able to do that are being lost. Quite frankly, while the government has said that lots of jobs are being created, a minimum wage job in the service sector does not pay the bills of the average Canadian family today.

We have an opportunity with a generational change in the public service to offer good jobs, interesting jobs, highly skilled jobs, decent paying jobs to a whole new generation of young people, but instead, the government is looking for ways to deny those opportunities. It is looking for ways to eliminate those job opportunities, to get rid of the need for jobs in what I would argue is one of the most safety sensitive sectors of our economy, the transportation sector.

Clearly, because Canada is such a vast country, airlines, rail, interprovincial trucking, shipping, all forms of transportation are fundamental to our economy. They are fundamental to who we are as a nation. They rest upon the absolute security that the utmost is being done to protect the safety of those who are using the transportation system, but also to protect the communities across Canada that would be very vulnerable to an erosion of transport safety, especially in the airline sector.

SMS will let the government increasingly transfer responsibility to the industry itself to set and enforce its own standards, because the government will have less and less of its own resources to do these activities.

Again I have to ask about the logic in cutting taxes for bank presidents and giving more money back to the oil and gas sector. The government tries to hide an embarrassment of riches rather than investing in communities, investing in people, investing in social services, investing in infrastructure, and investing in the generational change that the government is facing. Baby boomers are retiring and young people are looking for decent and secure skilled jobs so that they can make a contribution to this country. This is an opportunity in the transportation sector that is being squandered by the government.

This bill was originally a Liberal bill sponsored by the former transport minister. The Liberal and Conservative members were initially willing to pass the bill without further amendments. Then the chorus of opposition began and there was real concern from the witnesses who were heard by the Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities. Those witnesses included: Justice Virgil Moshansky of the Dryden crash inquiry; two Transport Canada inspectors unions, the CFPA and UCTE; the Canada Safety Council; some smaller air carriers and operators; Ken Rubin, an access to information expert; and unions representing flight attendants, the Teamsters and CUPE.

Their criticism focused on the unprecedented and unacceptable decline in regulatory oversight by Transport Canada and the greater ability for the industry to set and enforce its own safety standards out of public sight and scrutiny, among other issues. It is unfortunate that the only time transportation safety seems to make the front pages of the newspapers is when a disaster takes place. If the average Canadian knew that this bill was transferring responsibility for safety regulations and enforcement over to the very companies that increasingly are engaged in the incredibly fierce competition in the airline sector, they would be concerned. Canadians would be concerned that perhaps the temptation would be too great in some instances that the needs of the operation, the need to have the business imperatives would take precedence over public safety.

Having said that, we have some of the best airlines in the world. We have award winning airlines. We have an excellent record of safety, but that is because we have had stringent safety requirements.

I remember the debate around the deregulation of the airline industry. What was stated by the government of the day was that fundamental in a deregulated airline environment was the requirement to make safety absolutely paramount. It was argued at the time as a way of reassuring Canadians that there would be no compromise to safety. Under no circumstances would safety requirements be slackened or would there be any undermining of regulations or safety inspectors that protect Canadians in the transportation sector.

Here we are many years later and I fear that is exactly what is happening. The people who work in this industry, the ones who are closest to it who see airline operations every day, are the ones who are expressing concerns about this bill. As parliamentarians we have to listen to their concerns and take their concerns very seriously.

As I said, this bill has been amended. Some amendments were adopted unanimously, but unfortunately, the amendments only go part of the way.

The other half of the work has been left undone and it represents serious flaws in the bill that continue to jeopardize Canadian aviation safety and the safety of the travelling public and aviation workers. We have been proposing further amendments that would actually improve aviation safety, not reduce it.

Part of the problem with the bill, which I will highlight, is that it heightens secrecy. When there are public regulations and enforcement, there is public scrutiny. When safety requirements, their determination and enforcement are left to individual companies to determine, then a veil comes over the safety provisions and we will not have access to safety information.

Our amendments would have preserved the operation of the Access to Information Act in key areas but that proposal was defeated at the committee stage, which makes us very concerned about the secrecy provisions.

We are also concerned about the lack of whistleblower protection. While a form of whistleblower protection has been introduced, there is no effective redress mechanism for employees who face reprisals taken against them, other than a warning or possible fine.

However, it is small comfort to a person who, out of concern for the travelling public, raises an issue of public safety and then is penalized for doing so, potentially even losing his or her job, which is disastrous. It is a potential outcome that most people would simply not risk. I would hate to think that safety concerns are not brought to the attention of the public, especially if they have been brought to the attention of the airline and no action is taken.

Employees are granted immunity from prosecution for reporting violations only under certain conditions but conditional whistleblower protection is really no protection at all and this ought to be of great concern to all Canadians.

The bill would provide the airlines with the same opportunities as whistleblowers to divulge breaches in SMS regulations with impugnity, but under the new hands-off enforcement policy of Transport Canada under SMS, no action will be taken against corporate offenders if the problem is corrected in a timely fashion. It is like someone travelling down the highway at 150 kilometres and, even though it comes to the attention of the police, by deciding to voluntarily slow the car down under the speed limit no action will be taken. It is not the way the law of the land should work.

The government contends that companies will no longer divulge safety problems without this provision. This is unconvincing. It is kind of an unwillingness to enforce what ought to be strict, visible, clear public regulations that assure Canadians and the travelling public of the utmost in safety.

I want to quote Dave Ritchie, the president of the machinists union, which represents mechanics and ramp workers who are very concerned about safety. Mr. Ritchie says:

Without constant and effective public regulation, corporations will constantly push the limits of safe operations, at growing risk to the traveling public.

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 effective monitoring by Transport Canada of SMS in Canada is problematic, it is even more unlikely at foreign worksites.

Canadians rely on transportation and they have confidence in their transportation system. I believe we must maintain that integrity but that is not the case with the bill. I regret that the proposed changes that would have made the bill acceptable have not been adopted in their entirety. Canadians will be the worse off for it.

I regret to say again that we will not be supporting the bill. It is a real missed opportunity to reassure Canadians about their transportation safety.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on the very clear concerns that she has articulated with regard to the secrecy surrounding the bill, the lack of whistleblower protection, the lack of oversight and the maintenance shortcuts.

I know the member was once an airline employee and, therefore, has a real insight into what happens and what will happen to the employees who are profoundly concerned about the impact of this legislation. I wonder if she could comment about the effect this would have on the people who work on airplanes.

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

Mr. Speaker, airline employees have been through incredible turmoil over the last 20 or so years with the deregulation of the airline sector and incredible cut throat competition. We have seen bankruptcies in some companies and layoffs in others. We have seen real attacks on the wages and working conditions of airline workers.

I fear that this legislation may create a climate where people will be unwilling to raise their concerns because they do not believe that their voices, as the people closest to airline safety, will be listened to. It is a genuine concern that all MPs and, in fact, all Canadians ought to be concerned about.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have sat and listened to this debate for several months. As the chair of the transportation committee, I would like to advise the members who are speaking today that this was not something that was hidden from the public, as suggested by members opposite. It was not done without consultation, as suggested by members opposite. The bill was brought forward to committee and was hashed over many times until all people involved and impacted were heard from directly. Most, if not all, of the recommendations that were brought forward by the public were adopted into the bill. The bill has been through the entire scrutiny process.

Members opposite had a member who sat on that committee, which spent hours discussing the bill. I just wonder if the members who are speaking here today are aware that the unions and associations that initially had concerns actually endorsed the bill at the end of the process. I would like the member to please comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, while many of the proposed amendments that we made and many of the witnesses made have been adopted, clear concerns remain among many of the workers and their organizations who presented before committee. They may have endorsed some of the changes that were made but they do not endorse transferring responsibility for setting safety requirements and enforcing safety to the companies that are in fact in a hyper-competitive environment right now in the airline industry.

In responding to my colleague's question, I must ask him if putting the companies themselves in this position is not a little disingenuous. I do not believe that they are asking for it. It is a way to solve the problem for the government, which really does not want to pay to do enforcement itself. Canadians may like privatization of some things but I am not sure they like the privatization of safety enforcement.

I disagree with my colleague that this is widely known by the public. I do not believe it is.