Evidence of meeting #34 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was investigation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
—aside from negotiation.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
This is a much more far-reaching question, I hope. Am I misreading this when I read that there would be a greater power for regulating? I'm not sure. I thought I heard that. I don't have difficulty with the situation where regulations are created, and there's a system whereby this occurs now. But is this act asking for a greater authority to regulate on the part of the department?
5:05 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
No, we're asking, in some areas, to expand the regulatory authority, which of course is always subjected to the CARAC--the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council--process, but in consultation.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Yes, it goes through. It gives it one, it gives it two.... Well, there is the committee, the Governor in Council.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Okay, that's what I want. As we go through these hearings, then, I think that would be something we may want to....
5:05 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Yes, there may be one or two areas where there are additional requirements for regulation-making authority.
5:05 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
I'll give you an example. Right now we have no authority to regulate with respect to fatigue issues for maintenance people. So you'll find a fatigue management section there that now targets all the people in aviation, because the previous act restricted our powers in that area in terms of where we could regulate. So we're trying to take a holistic approach towards everybody who could impact the safe flight and to deal with things like fatigue. In those areas, yes, there are some additions.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you.
I had some questions left on the role of the Department of National Defence.
Mr. Laplante, you talked about civil-military occurrence investigations. I would like to know what you mean by that. Is there a single type or are there several? Does it involve cases where military aircraft collide with civilian aircraft?
5:10 p.m.
Director, Flight Safety, Department of National Defence
For several years, a number of civilian companies have been involved in our flying operations. The situations vary greatly. In some circumstances, civilian organizations provide us with our aircraft. That is the case with Bombardier in Moose Jaw. These companies provide the aircraft and maintain it, whereas on our side, we provide the pilots and train them on the aircraft.
Other civil-military investigations can take place if, for example, a civilian company performs major maintenance work on one of our aircraft and following that an accident occurs. The civilian company is implicated in the probable causes of the accident. We must be able to investigate the civilian company to determine the causes of the accident.
In other cases, for example in Southport, Manitoba, we have aircraft that are subject to a contract between National Defence and a civilian company. They belong to the civilian company and are registered with Transport Canada. They are maintained in accordance with Transport Canada standards, and that department is responsible for certification.
However, use of the aircraft by National Defence is part of a long-term contract and, according to the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act, National Defence is responsible for investigating an accident in which it is involved, provided that the aircraft are used in support of National Defence. So you have an aircraft that is completely regulated by Transport Canada but which is used by National Defence, who becomes responsible for the investigation. In that case, if the accident does not involve another civilian aircraft or a civilian airport, it can be considered purely a military investigation, and the Transportation Safety Board cannot be involved in our investigation. That is where we need to be careful. We do not want to end up with a civilian employee who is afraid of losing his job because he has provided information to the Department of National Defence. We must have the same authority as the Transportation Safety Board to be able to protect the individual. Our goal is not to punish the individual, our goal is always to find the causes of the accident to ensure that there won't be another accident for the same reasons.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
If I understand correctly, in all of the cases that you have mentioned, the investigation will be conducted by the person designated by the Department of National Defence? So the investigation will be conducted by your department, will it not?
5:10 p.m.
Director, Flight Safety, Department of National Defence
Yes, within the Department of National Defence, the minister has the obligation to investigate all flight safety problems. The department has delegated that authority to my boss, the Director of Flight Safety, who is also responsible for investigations under the Technical Airworthiness Program. When we conduct an investigation we do it independently. The chain of command does not influence our report. The report is not signed by the Minister of Defence or by the Chief of the Air Staff, the report is signed by my boss, and it is an independent report. It is an independent organization. A certain number of investigators are trained specifically for this type of investigation.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
Is the definition that you have given me concerning accidents between military and civilian aircraft in the bill?
5:10 p.m.
Director, Flight Safety, Department of National Defence
Yes. In English, these aircraft are called military conveyances. In French, this is identified in paragraph 10(1)(a). This paragraph defines what is considered a military aircraft and what is considered a civilian aircraft operated by National Defence. This is an aircraft under the direction of National Defence for the purposes of the investigation.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
So, could Transport Canada experts be part of an investigation you are conducting?
5:10 p.m.
Director, Flight Safety, Department of National Defence
Yes, of course. At that point, we will use the expertise of Transport Canada and the civilian company. Given the proposed amendments to the legislation we will be able to use civilian experts, while protecting information. And we will be able to make recommendations when our report is reviewed, before it is made public on our website.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you, Mr. Laplante.
With that, we do have a few things that I want to close our business day with, so I thank our witnesses for attending today and I appreciate your comments. Perhaps we'll have a discussion later, as this bill moves forward.
Thank you.
While our witnesses are leaving, I would like to advise you of a couple of things.
Mr. Bélanger mentioned expert witnesses being available in regard to the other side of this story, I guess. We have Mr. Moshansky, who acted in the Dryden review. He actually wrote us and asked us if he could make a presentation to committee. He did the inquiry and made the final report and two interim reports, and I think based on what I'm hearing, he may present a very interesting, different position to what we're trying to do.
I am also advised that there are some people who could be made available through the ICAO, which is the International Civil Aviation Organization, who deal with those types of issues.
The last thing I want to bring to the committee's attention is that I received a letter this morning from Canada Post. I'll read the letter, and I'll just advise you as to what I've done with it and where we will proceed.
It's written to the clerk. It says:
The President of Canada Post would like to thank the Committee for their invitation to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Unfortunately, a scheduling conflict prevents her from appearing before your Committee this coming Wednesday, February 14, 2007.
The President wants to confirm her commitment to participate to any future appearance in order to address the important issue of remailing or any other Canada Post issues.
I will be contacting her office. Due to the timing of it, I felt I had to make a decision, and I've made a decision that we would defer her, with the idea that I'm going to get in touch with her over the next week and confirm a date. Something has come up.
We were able, for Wednesday's meeting, to confirm Transport 2000 to appear before the committee on Bill C-6.
Mr. Julian has advised the clerk, and therefore me, that he would be bringing forward his motion with regard to the National Marine Council on Wednesday. It's been tabled and he has the option of bringing it forward.
If everybody is comfortable with that.... Mr. Volpe.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Chairman, I was under the mistaken impression that you were going to canvass the committee on how you were going to respond to the president of Canada Post.
Just as a matter of general response to an answer like that, what you read out in the letter, I would say I'm not impressed with somebody's commitment to the commitment. I'm more impressed with the attendance when it was requested. So unless it's too late, I'd advise that you let the president of Canada Post know that we'd already confirmed her for Wednesday and the members are loaded for a meeting on Wednesday. That's this Wednesday, not next week.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
You made a decision. You have already contacted Canada Post to say that you agreed to discuss this another day.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We have started the negotiations, and I'm hoping it'll be done within the next 10 to 14 days, which would be the next two to four meetings. I would be prepared to accommodate whatever Ms. Greene's...if she says February 28, we'll make arrangements for that particular day.
Monsieur Laframboise.
5:15 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I trust you. In committee, we always try to get along with the witnesses, but I should also mention that there are limits to our patience.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Is there a speakers' list, Mr. Chair? I'm just curious.