Evidence of meeting #38 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 transport.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Vice-President, Engineering and Maintenance, Air Transport Association of Canada
I will if I can, Mr. Chairman.
No, there are no fewer inspections or inspectors in place at this time. The same amount of oversight is taking place. In some ways, the oversight has actually increased. Especially as we are implementing SMS in these early days, there's a lot for us to still work on very closely with Transport Canada.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Quickly just coming back to Mr. Benson, you seem to almost suggest that SMS is going to replace regulations. Just walk me through this a bit here. If an accident occurs, the NTSB—let's take fatigue, for example, which you raised—may look backward at an accident and say fatigue was a contributing factor in this one, and it could then suggest regulatory change. Can SMS not look at trends going forward, for example, at an issue like fatigue, and inform necessary change before an accident happens?
Anybody else who'd like to can comment on that?
4:45 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
At Teamsters Canada, because of our role across various sectors as well as North America-wide, I think we have a serious understanding of sleep science and biological needs. If that's true, then the best model we can have to deal with fatigue is prescriptive rules coupled with a fatigue management system. Sleep science and what is required for prescriptive rules are quite definitive. If one looks at the new hours of service for trucking, you see a glimmer of it. So the issue becomes that we're locked in a process that says we can't have prescriptive rules and that we can just take care of it through fatigue management. The answer is that you can't.
We're locked in a process in which we were talking about it, and it was pulled off the table. We know through our understanding of sleep science—because of our involvement in the trucking and rail industry and aviation and elsewhere—that there are concerns. We have concerns about a process that doesn't deal adequately with health and safety concerns of our members. We have a concern with a process that always talks about not having prescriptive rules and having to have this new system. That's the process. That's not the legislation; it's a process.
So as long as I see the process, members of Parliament should be aware that codifying a process that doesn't deal with these things going forward causes us concern. And the fact that these issues are health and safety concerns leads to effective deregulation. It leads to all sorts of things that we don't think you, as legislators, want to go to. At least we would hope not.
4:45 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Airports Council
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The whole point of updating and modernizing Canada's Aeronautics Act and including designated organizations and SMS is exactly as Mr. Watson pointed out, Mr. Chair. It's to look forward, to take mitigating action, to think ahead and not have to have these incidents caused by whatever they are caused by, and to allow the people who work every day on the front line to take the necessary actions they can right now and solve the problems, rather than having to start a process today that takes weeks or months on end.
4:45 p.m.
President and CEO, Canadian Business Aviation Association
Thank you.
Your SMS in fact will consider fatigue management, it will be forward-looking, and it can be customized to the circumstances you're dealing with. That's one of the reasons why prescription does not work. Just because you say you'll take 12 hours of rest does not necessarily mean you've gotten appropriate rest. Fatigue management is part of SMS and should be used.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Zed Liberal Saint John, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I had a question for Mr. Benson regarding the voluntary legislative framework in regard to the contraventions that were related to aviation safety or security. Persons who report such information are provided with confidentiality programs, protections, and presumably enforcement immunities.
My question specifically is whether you think the voluntary provisions in the bill are adequate against self-incrimination. Do you think the internal reporting mechanisms could fail for other reasons, such as an employer's discouraging an employee from reporting security concerns?
4:50 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
Again, as we said in our brief, this is something one would expect in the best practices of a company that has as its intention to make sure that all safety and security are in place. We have it in the legislation, obviously, because there are concerns that's not going to occur. We do know, or it has been reported to me, that in other issues on health and safety the companies have been, shall we say, rather forceful in trying to dissuade people from making reports.
Will it happen here? I certainly hope not. Is it satisfactory? The fact that it's here and the questions we ask about how it's going to impact should raise some red flags--not enough, as we said at the end of our submission, to necessarily kill it, but to examine it. If you have questions in your brain, then why are we pushing forward with it in this particular structure?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Zed Liberal Saint John, NB
Could I request, for the committee's consideration, that if you have some red flags you might propose some amendment or alternative that you might want us to consider? We may not consider it, but it's our job to evaluate it.
4:50 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
I'll certainly discuss it with the airline division.
As a general rule, your capability as a committee, as with the justice department, has a clear understanding of writing or drafting statutory proceedings. if you have a question or query, perhaps the justice department lawyers and Transport Canada lawyers will have the time to do so. But certainly we will look at it.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
February 26th, 2007 / 4:50 p.m.
Vice-President, Operations and Legal Affairs, Canadian Airports Council
These are addressed in our more detailed written submissions, but the protection that currently exists in Bill C-6 does not extend to proceedings under other acts or access by the courts to the voluntary reports, and there are certain areas where the minister may release the information that may be contained in voluntary reports.
We're concerned that these voluntary and non-punitive reports are at the very heart of the safety management system. They tap safety information that we've been unable to access through any other mechanism historically. The first time this information leaks—who made the voluntary report, what the contents of the report are—or the voluntary reporter is subpoenaed as a witness in the civil courts or for proceedings under another act, then we are concerned that some of the those voluntary reports will dry up and we will lose access to that safety information.
So we don't think the protection that exists in Bill C-6 is adequate currently.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I want to quote another testimony, this one by the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada.
The provisions outlined in Bill C-6, in particular those that relate to designated organizations and safety management systems, will help pave the way toward the aerospace industry assuming greater responsibility for regulating its own behaviour in areas of the law that are widely seen and accepted as low risk.
There are a few more things in that paragraph, but this is just to add to Mr. Facette's comment from a while ago. When anyone says “regulating its own behaviour”, I suspect that could be interpreted as self-regulation. We'll see that as we go along.
I want to go back to low risk, that airports are low risk. When the Vancouver airport posted on the Internet its detailed plans, and you immediately had to yank them for fear that anybody who would want to have information to sabotage that airport would have ready access to those detailed plans, would that be considered low risk?
4:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Airports Council
Mr. Chair, Vancouver's behaviour is best asked of Vancouver.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Airports Council
They are, sir.
4:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Airports Council
That particular question is best addressed to Vancouver directly.
4:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Operations and Legal Affairs, Canadian Airports Council
If I may, Mr. Chairman, the phrase “self-regulation” is—
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
That's not my area of questioning. I just wanted to put that on the table. I'm on to “low-risk”. I'm trying to get a sense of what that is.
Perhaps I can go the other way around with the time remaining. What's “high-risk” or “medium-risk”? What are the categories? Can someone help me with that?
