Transport Committee on May 16th, 2007

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

It would end there.

So it would start with “management system”, and then “means”, and then go on to that.

The reason, I understand, is from the department again. It was a recommendation to have a broader definition, not restrictive. We might need other forms of systems, and it limits it to risk only.

In essence, I would suggest the friendly amendment that I'm proposing to Monsieur Laframboise is still generally in the concept of what was proposed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

For the record, we have a subamendment proposed by Mr. Jean that would read:

“management system” means a documented management process that integrates operations and technical systems with the management of financial and human resources.

Stop.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I was wondering if the department could comment on that, as to why they recommended that.

[Franz Reinhardt]

Again, I'll repeat what I said. We want something that is as broad as possible in the event that we need other than safety management systems, and we know we may need other management systems. That's why we want to keep it broad.

Safety management system is already defined thoroughly. It's a very detailed definition in the CARs. I recognize here--I don't know who prepared the amendment--that it was borrowed from our CARs. We think there's a danger that if you put it in the act, you restrict the minister's enabling authority to come up with other types of management systems, if need be, down the road.

So that's why we want to keep it broad, and then you can narrow it down.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Why are you recommending the deletion of “in order to reduce risk to the lowest possible level and make continuous improvements to aviation safety and the safety of the public”? Why are you suggesting eliminating that?

[Franz Reinhardt]

I have no difficulty with this, but there may be management systems that are not related to risk. So that's why we said, is it appropriate to have that qualifier of risk there?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Does it actually limit the minister's discretion, if indeed he...?

[Franz Reinhardt]

Certainly anything we can ask will always be to ensure continuous improvement to aviation safety and the safety of the public. It may not be directly related to the reduction of risk; it may be a generic type of management system that is not directly related. Maybe it could be “...that integrates operations and technical systems with the management of financial and human resources in order to make continuous improvement to aviation safety and the safety of the public”, or something like that.

I'm not sure that you want to put “risk” there. “Risk” is qualifying a bit too much. I think it's restricting, don't you?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Monsieur Laframboise.

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

I am having a very hard time accepting your explanation because, fundamentally, it is a safety management system. You want to give it a very broad definition and say it is just a management system. You could add administrative management, which has nothing to do with safety. Imagine the debate if it was decided that, under the legislation presented here today, an administrative management system could be implemented that would have nothing to do with safety. If that is what you would like to do, we must hear witnesses and users to determine whether they are willing to have an administrative management system imposed on them.

I am not saying that you are wrong, but adopting such a definition poses a problem. If the word “risk” is used, at least there is a focus on safety. We would reduce risk management to the most basic level, improve aviation safety and the safety of the public, and it would still be a safety management system. If you remove the words “safety” and “risk”, this would mean that all kinds of management systems could be imposed, including administrative management systems. This would mean interfering with the management and administration of airlines.

I could be inclined to agree with you, but I would like the airlines to tell me if they would like us to interfere in their administration. The advantage of our definition is that it focuses on safety and risk. If you want to get involved in other management systems, however, I hope the airlines are aware.

[Franz Reinhardt]

That is not our intention, Mr. Laframboise. It still has to do with safety. In my opinion, the word “risk” could be included.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Do you have a comment, Monsieur Bélanger?

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

Mr. Chairman, essentially I'm going in the same sense as Monsieur Laframboise has just mentioned. I don't disagree with Mr. Reinhardt that perhaps definitions in the text of law could be somewhat broader than in regulation, but they can't be so broad as to be meaningless or to encompass everything.

Taking out any reference to risk and safety, which is everything we've been talking about, I think, is making it too broad. Conversely, if this is not accepted, we may want to consider calling it “safety management system” instead of “management system”. Then you've narrowed it a bit more precisely

in response to Mr. Laframboise's concern. We do not intend to try to include everything.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Would you comment, Mr. Reinhardt?

[Franz Reinhardt]

Mr. Chair, I would prefer that we keep “management system”. At least “management system” is a bit broader, but after reviewing this.... Of course, as I mentioned to you, our intention is not to impose a management system that would have anything to do with improving safety; it has to be related to aviation safety, for sure, and it is always related to risk. So we don't have difficulty, but we would rather keep it broader: “management” as opposed to “safety management”.

In the CARs, it is “safety management”. It is detailed and more specific.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I think we've heard that there's no real reason for Mr. Jean's amendment and that risk management is a key factor. There is no doubt that his amendment would weaken the proposed definition, and there's no doubt that the witnesses who came before this committee were concerned about safety management, about the process for managing risk. Mr. Laframboise's proposed amendment is very effective in dealing with that fundamental issue that we, as members of this committee, have to deal with.

I do want to raise one point, Mr. Chair, right at the outset, because we will be spending many committee meetings together. I'm very happy to have the department resource people here, but they are resource people; they are not here to debate political points and go back and forth debating with individual members.

I hope that you, as chair, will differentiate between those of us who are elected to represent the Canadian people and to make legislation better, and those who are here as very valued resource people--people we can go to on occasion with specific technical questions, but who are not participating in the political debates.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The chair will take your advice, but I think the idea of having our witnesses here is to provide us with the best information possible to make the decisions that we can. If they get into the debate, I'll correct them on that, but I think the information they've provided to date has been informative.

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

From the testimony I've heard in the past, we're talking about--and we've used the term “SMS” repeatedly--safety management systems. I think the broader definition here of “management systems” widens it and I think the proposed amendment of cutting it off after the words “human resources” pulls back the clarification of what is intended.

When you get into a situation quite often...and I realize we're writing the broader strokes, if you want to call it that, and there are regulations that underlie this. But certainly my experience with law has been that when the judges are there, they're looking for direction as to what the lawmakers intended and for the most clarity you can provide without having it become burdensome.

I think the definition of the term “management systems” should be “safety management systems”, so we're clear, and I think we should leave the last portion of that sentence in, which includes a reference to reducing risks to the lowest possible level.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Chair, first of all, thank you for not limiting our access to the witnesses we have here from the department. Thank you so much.

I sort of agree with Mr. Bell. I think he also wants a more expansive definition. The problem is that we had a number of witnesses at this table who actually went out of their way to distinguish between safety and security. You may recall that. They classified those as two different concepts.

When we're talking about safety, we're talking about the structure of the airplane, how it's flown, etc. Security is the whole aspect of interlopers or people from outside deliberately focusing on bringing down a plane or hurting people. That distinction jumped right out at me simply because it was so stark.

This definition doesn't capture security. I had assumed, given the fact that we're going to be discussing security in the future and it's right there at the front of the public's agenda now, that we would want to have a definition that is as broad and expansive as possible.

Mr. Bell, you've suggested the term “safety management process”. Even putting the word “safety” in there does limit that definition. That's why I support my colleague Mr. Jean, simply because it is broad enough to capture any additional management processes that are required to ensure that the travelling public is not only safe but secure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

In most of the courts I've looked at in the interpretation of law, with respect, Mr. Bell, my understanding is that judges usually look for the authority, first of all, to make a decision.

As Mr. Fast has said, and rightly so I think, keeping security out of it certainly restricts a judge's opportunity to make appropriate judgments on it.

“Safety management systems” is already defined in the regulations, and now we're going to have the legislation that supports those regulations become restrictive; it just doesn't make sense. I think keeping it broad allows a judge to decide, first of all, that he has the authority, and secondly, to put that in place and deal with it. As well, he can look at the regulations and also our discussions here today in relation to what he can or can't do.

But certainly it appears to me that we should have it left as proposed, “management systems”, and at the very most, with the continuation of the additional issue of risk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think we have a very effective amendment offered by Mr. Laframboise. Mr. Jean has provided language that is much vaguer and much weaker. There's no doubt that “a documented management process” leaves out the most vital element that has been raised at these committee hearings.

So we have a responsibility to look at the definition as Monsieur Laframboise has proposed it to ensure that this definition is strong and reflects the concerns that have been raised by witnesses before this committee.

Now, we just agreed to come back to clause 1 at the end of the process if we felt it needed tweaking. I would ask Mr. Jean to withdraw his subamendment so we can proceed on this first amendment. If we believe at the end of this process it needs tweaking, we've already opened the door to do that.