Transport Committee on Feb. 12th, 2007

[Franz Reinhardt]

The International Civil Aviation Organization looked into this, and they have a special CAEP committee reviewing those emissions. As you know, there are over 180 signatories to ICAO that are privy to the information provided by the CAEP committee.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

The final question is one that is off the wall a little bit.

We heard about aircraft and the new planes that are being built. The Americans are apparently putting pressure on Canadian citizens over who can work on those aircraft, because of dual citizenship.

Has there even been an incident, in terms of regulating the system over the last years, where an individual with dual citizenship has been a threat to the safety and security of the aircraft flying in this country?

[Merlin Preuss]

Not to my knowledge, sir.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

There are no questions on this side, so we'll go back to Monsieur Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

One of the proposed measures—I believe it is clause 2—talks about Canada's international obligations. The amendments are proposed in part to ensure Canada meets its national obligations.

Could you tell us what international obligations Canada is currently not meeting?

[Franz Reinhardt]

None. I believe you are referring to what we call in English the purpose clause.

Of course, it's as part of a purpose clause. There was no purpose clause in the past and they were not exact. We're now coming up with one. We are reflecting the mandate of Transport Canada under a purpose clause.

It was there before, and it is there now, but we needed to craft a purpose clause to really get a good appreciation of what the bill was all about.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

So there are no international obligations that we are unable to meet. Is that correct?

[Franz Reinhardt]

Yes.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Industry has been given responsibility for self-monitoring. I am not referring here to self-regulation. Do Transport Canada's obligations regarding consistency with other legislation also apply to the private sector?

[Franz Reinhardt]

I cannot speak to other legislation. However, I can tell you that when we ask certificate holders to self-monitor and to conduct verifications, we do our own verifications and monitoring as well, in other words, what we were doing before. Nothing has changed, except that there is more monitoring than before.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I am going to give you the example of official languages. All carriers are subject, to a certain degree, to the Official Languages Act. When we talk about self-monitoring, are there any clauses in these monitoring regimes that deal with official languages?

[Franz Reinhardt]

No. I can tell you, in light of my experience, that among the requirements that we currently have such as reading safety measures on the aircraft, there are no exemptions. They must all comply with the Official Languages Act.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I am not talking about exemptions. What often happens in cases where authority is delegated is that we forget to delegate responsibilities, or certain responsibilities, that fall to the department. I would like to know if you would eventually be in a position to assure the committee that in such a case, the delegation will include the responsibility to comply with the other pieces of legislation the department is subject to.

[Franz Reinhardt]

We have indeed addressed that topic, and we can guarantee that it is our intent to ensure that these acts are complied with. I can even give you an example: the provisions of the Labour Code concerning the Aviation OSH, the Aviation Occupational Safety and Health Regulations.

We are aware of part II of the Canada Labour Code and the fact that its provisions apply regardless of any other legislation. We advised certificate holders of that, and we even took steps, as facilitators, to try and bring certain unions and companies to agreement.

The Aeronautics Act does, indeed, have certain requirements, but we are respectful of the requirements of other legislation. Employers and employees must simply agree as to the implementation of this coordination.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

So there would be no objection on the part of the government if an amendment were to be presented to confirm that?

[Franz Reinhardt]

I would not see there being any objection if it can add something, although I am unsure that it would.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Preuss, do you want to add something?

[Merlin Preuss]

The concept of delegations to which you refer is not new. We've had those delegations in force for many years, perhaps decades, and there's never been a question of meeting the obligations of the Official Languages Act. They have managed quite well, to my knowledge.

There are always incidents where someone wants to question something. But the delegations themselves are obligated to respect the law, and to my knowledge they do, to the best of their ability.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

I want to go back to my initial question. I have nothing against the safety management system, but the problem, to my mind, is that you are creating an organized system that will apply to small companies. I think that it can work for large corporations, and I am convinced that you have the inspectors you need to show up any time at Air Transat or Air Canada and ensure that everything is in order.

The problem with this bill is that you are organizing smaller companies into safety management systems. If they are unable to do so themselves, you create designated organizations that will organize the sector. So you are creating an organized system.

To my mind, the dubious aspect concerns the monitoring of this system, which must always be done by Transport Canada. You say that you will be doing more inspections than in the past. We will see what other witnesses have to say about that. For the time being, that is what you are saying, and I am not sure that it is the case. I know that you have reduced your inspectors' training budgets. That is the problem.

I do not have a problem with organizing the system, with delegating to organizations that will take responsibility for a sector, but you must have the staff necessary to inspect any company, from the smallest to the largest, at any time. Having the industry organize itself and set up safety management systems is one thing, but if there isn't anyone I trust to ensure that they are meeting the safety standards as the population expects them to do, that is a problem.

You are organizing a system, but I am not sure that you have the staff you need to ensure that the system is better than the current one. As we speak, you have inspectors who may go, at any time, to any company to ensure it is meeting safety standards.

That is what I was saying at the outset. Because of the attacks in 2001, I would have preferred seeing a greater number of inspectors and not an organized system; let's allow, for example, Air Canada and Air Transat, through regulations, to have a safety management system, but not the smaller companies. Keep in mind that it was a smaller company that trained the pilots who crashed their aircraft into the twin towers in New York.

I have trouble accepting the idea of this system and leaving the issue of safety entirely in the hands of industry.

[Merlin Preuss]

If I understand you correctly, your concern is with the smaller operators--perhaps the air taxi sector.

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

Yes, given what you do. You are creating designated organizations. In your text, it says this:

In low-risk parts of the aviation industry, such as business aircraft operators, we intend to authorize industry to establish operational standards for their members. We would audit their members' management system [...]

So it is the organization that will audit the management system. That is what you are telling us, it is in writing.

[Merlin Preuss]

What I think has happened here is that a system is in place for the non-commercial operators. It is for the likes of Shell Canada and their flight department, for Weston Foods--for presidents in the private sector who have their own airplanes. We have a system in place now, a very successful system that has been running for more than three years, and they have to have a safety management system. In between us and the operator is an organization that has a designated authority to provide the infrastructure for the safety oversight. You're talking about the Canadian Business Aviation Association.

One of the reasons they've been so successful and have a very good safety record is the CEOs of the companies take the advice of their flight department, and they are knowledgeable of the operation. That's different from you or me buying a ticket, sir, because we basically trust in the system that's in place to assure our safety.

I've no intention to designate a company to go out to provide oversight over these small operators--not at all. That's not what's envisioned by anything in this act. That's not what we're talking about at all. We're talking about putting at least the basic principles in place at the smaller operations, the smaller airports, the smaller air operators, so that they too can start looking a little deeper into their problems to find the issues before they become accidents.

We've just completed a pilot project that included even something as small as a one-person maintenance organization to see the issues that would be coming forward if we asked for the SMS to be put in place with the smaller operators, and the results have been quite positive. The only thing that stands out in terms of the study is that, as we might expect, they're going to need more help from us to set these things up than perhaps Air Canada or Nav Canada or Pearson airport would need, because they simply don't have the expertise, the sophistication, and the infrastructure--but we would ask them to apply the same principles, albeit at a less sophisticated level in a less sophisticated process.

As I mentioned before, that's not law and that's not regulation yet in terms of the smaller operators. We're being very careful; we're not about to displace what has given us the record we have without some assurance and confidence that what we have put in place is going to do the job. This is not a tomorrow thing; this is three years or four years down the road, and with a careful implementation plan.

All I can tell you now, based on our experience--and we've been at it for quite a few years with Air Transat--is it's all positive.

There was also a question about intervention. We're not going to lose the ability to intervene as we have in the past; we just won't start there, because if the system works, then the little bits and pieces of the system will work.

Today we sample little bits and pieces of the system and we deal with that particular infraction, that particular problem with that particular person, or that particular procedure. Why not fix the whole thing? Why not develop a system through which the little thing never gets to grow, because it's identified and fixed?

That's the theory. The practice right now has been successful to this point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Atamanenko.