Evidence of meeting #48 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 sms.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:25 p.m.
Senior Researcher, Air Canada Component, Canadian Union of Public Employees
You need three elements.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Senior Researcher, Air Canada Component, Canadian Union of Public Employees
You need to keep the regulatory box, you need to fix SMS, and you need to have regulatory oversight. Right now, if you don't have the right SMS, it's not going to work, in practice.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
If I can move over to Mr. Rubin....
Do you object fundamentally to SMS, or is it the context in which it's being implemented that you're opposed to?
4:25 p.m.
Public Interest Researcher, As an Individual
It's not a trick question, I agree, and I do object to it. It's an alphabet of the wrong order. It's optics or lack of them. Really, it's disgusting.
Since 1998, Transport Canada has been pretending they had the legislative authority to just willy-nilly go ahead and set forward a whole new philosophy that has not got much substance to it; when you knock out some of the underpinnings of the regulatory side and when you have tried it before and it's failed, you have to ask yourself why it has failed. Why are we writing all this paperwork and spending all this time and putting pressure on the airlines to implement this kind of a willy-nilly system?
4:25 p.m.
Public Interest Researcher, As an Individual
No, you're dealing in black and white. We're dealing in bureaucratic grey areas here, and I'm saying you've got to understand that this system has so many fault lines that it's not a matter of being opposed to it or not. You have to look at why it has so many deficiencies and problems that it's time to call a halt and start anew. It's not being “opposed” or “for” anything.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you for that clarification.
We've had quite a number of witnesses before us. Obviously, everyone has a different opinion. There are those who really don't like SMS. There are those who are big defenders of SMS. Those are those who support Bill C-6 and SMS. There are those who like SMS but would like to have Bill C-6 amended to make it a little more rigorous in terms of a regulatory framework, making sure the inspectors are in place, etc.
When I look at all the witnesses who have appeared before us, I might be inclined to trust the evidence of those who have the most to lose. Those, in my mind, are the pilots who fly the planes for the airlines that are going to crash if SMS doesn't work and who are going to lose their lives if SMS doesn't work. We had the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association before us. We had the Air Canada Pilots Association before us. Both of them spoke highly favourably of SMS and the fact that their companies and members had implemented SMS. Now they did say they had some concerns, and they talked about regulatory oversight. I think we're going to be addressing that in some amendments we're going to bring forward.
However, one of the key things they did say was that they do not support whistle-blower legislation because whistle-blower legislation works against SMS. They strongly supported the immunity provisions of Bill C-6.
Perhaps I could ask Mr. Rubin, because you're the one who has had a broader comment on the whole SMS system. How would you respond to the very individuals who are going to be flying these planes, who obviously are the experts? They've done a lot of research themselves into this. They've been an integral part of implementing SMS. They're speaking in favour of it. You aren't as warm to the idea.
4:30 p.m.
Public Interest Researcher, As an Individual
I'm not even fuzzy warm.
I've dealt with a lot of whistle-blowers. Some people even call me a permanent whistle-blower, on issues such as breast implants to security, or whatever. You have some gutsy people in this room today. You've got a small operator who has come forward. I know they are going to face reprisals.
The air taxi industry has had its problems over the years, and it hasn't been sufficiently dealt with by Transport Canada. You've got a union here that is putting itself on the line. I've seen this so many other times, and there's not adequate protection. The Federal Accountability Act, under your government, has started to do something about it. They've realized that if people are going to come forward and speak out, then they're going to need some protection, and that's partly what that bill has done.
I'm getting to your point. It's not an either/or, just as it's not a totally voluntary system. Immunity is very nice, but pilot and human error do occur. Fellow colleagues are concerned that maybe some of their fellow pilots aren't totally up to par. I think you need a system—
4:30 p.m.
Public Interest Researcher, As an Individual
No. I don't fly, but I've dealt with pilots—
4:30 p.m.
Public Interest Researcher, As an Individual
I don't know if it's relevant, but I try to fly high in other ways.
The fact of the matter is--and I was never a member of any party--that you can't build a 100% immunity system. You need to have whistle-blowing protection because pilots need that outlet too. You just have to have it built into these systems. That's one reason why they don't want to reveal the tapes, because in the Swissair thing and in other things when people are under pressure...sometimes pilots don't always do the best job possible. Maybe their next of kin or other people are interested in how those pilots did, and they should have the ability, hindsight or otherwise, to know about that.
I don't think 100% of the pilots are so favourable about SMS that they don't see beyond their noses that there's more at stake than just whether they're protecting themselves.
May 2nd, 2007 / 4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to talk a bit on the question Mr. Fast asked about when he was saying that pilots are in those planes. I believe there are flight attendants on the same flights, and perhaps some passengers once in a while. I think the flight attendants are very well represented here today. It's our responsibility around this table, all of us, to make sure the passengers' safety is also taken care of. It's not just the pilots.
4:30 p.m.
A voice
I'm not suggesting that.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I'm not suggesting you are; I'm adding to it.
Therefore, the fact that the flight attendants' representative is saying they have some serious concerns is I think as worthy of attention as the pilots' views, just on that basis.
Thank you, Mr. Rubin. I know you know the system well. I certainly will take a look at section 43 and section 24 and how they relate. If necessary, if the government doesn't present an amendment, I suspect some of the opposition parties may. Thank you for that.
Ms. Brazier, should there be some reprisals for your appearance here today, I would like your undertaking that you would come back to some of the members of this committee who might still be around. I'm not sure I accept that there will be, but should there be, I would hope you would take it upon yourself and would accept this as a formal request to follow up appropriately and alert members of the committee, either through the chair or individually.
May I have your undertaking on that?
4:35 p.m.
President, Operations Manager and Chief Pilot, Dax Air Inc.
I can assure you that if there are any threats of reprisal, the whole world will know about it, and I appreciate your concern.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Fair enough. Thank you.
I thank CUPE for your brief. It's fairly lengthy, and there's a lot of stuff to digest here, including the annex, but we'll do so.
I wanted us to focus a little on pages 17 to 19, which deal with the delegation of rule-setting to private bodies. Quite clearly you'd rather see that gone, and if not, I think you've even formulated an amendment—number 14, on page 19. In the alternative that we don't get rid of these sections, you'd ask that we designate “demonstrated low-risk, non-commercial sectors of the aviation industry”. I'd like you to twig me to what you mean by “non-commercial sectors of the aviation industry”.
4:35 p.m.
Senior Researcher, Air Canada Component, Canadian Union of Public Employees
I thought I knew the answer to that until I spoke with Mr. Jenner on Monday here in Ottawa. He is the author of the Helicopter Association of Canada study in tab 10. He said his understanding is that he and the CBAA, despite their testimony, would not be designated organizations under the law going forward; that in fact Transport Canada would be able to delegate functions to them whether this provision exists or not. He said, therefore, the provision would only apply to what Mr. Preuss spoke about, creating a college of ultralight pilots.
If that is the case, then the designation provision does not read the way I read it, because I thought the CBAA and the Helicopter Association had to come under that provision, that you couldn't go around it.
“Non-commercial”, in my view, is without fare-paying passengers.
4:35 p.m.
Senior Researcher, Air Canada Component, Canadian Union of Public Employees
They don't fall under the scope of the Aeronautics Act, if I'm not mistaken. They do their own thing. They are sort of the ultimate designated organization and run their own thing.
The CBAA flies the presidents of large corporations around, and you would think those people would be concerned about their safety.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
So they're non-fare-paying, but they're still commercial.
Anyway, it's a grey area.
