Evidence of meeting #53 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 review.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Mr. Reinhardt, or Mr. Preuss, I presume we want to meet or exceed any international standard that applies to safety?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
We would never want to say we want to have less safety than some other international—
4:20 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
No, but in our international convention under ICAO, it's possible for countries, or signatories to ICAO, to file some differences regarding some situations, as previously mentioned by Mr. Preuss here. But in general, yes, we meet more than the basic international requirements.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
So would a way of addressing the issue raised in this be to go back to the words, “meets or exceeds” the highest international safety standards?
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
May I just suggest that based on the comments made earlier, if we again measure ourselves based on an international standard, it may be less than what we're prepared to accept in Canada.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
There may be some, though, that we choose not to exceed or meet, and then we would file a—
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
You're saying there are some safety standards we don't want to bother meeting, that there'd be international safety standards that we don't think are worthy?
4:20 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Well, not necessarily that way.
The thing is that currently in this legislation we have in the purpose clause, that the minister be able to meet the international standards. Under section 4.9, we also have a rule-making authority allowing the Governor in Council to make regulations to meet international standards. We have all of those authorities.
Now, in the ICAO convention of 1944, signatory countries can always file some differences to some requirements of ICAO. For that reason, I would suggest that the way we have it now is the best of both worlds; we have all the regulatory authority to meet the international regulations, and we're not necessarily bound by some on which we would have to file a difference.
4:20 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
I have another example for you. We have a charter that doesn't permit us to discriminate on the basis of age. There is an ICAO rule that discriminates against age; we filed a difference against that.
There's a better example than the one I spoke about, with Captain Maurino, to give you an example of where we just can't do some of these things.
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
However, circumstances may arise in which certain individuals or groups may feel that you are not ensuring, or going far enough regarding, safety. That is why safety management systems are installed. You think you're the very best, nonetheless several witnesses told us that at times you may be wrong. That is why I think I will join those who are asking that this include a commitment on your part to meet the highest safety standards, be they international or Canadian. What we're saying is that the minister must commit to meeting the highest safety standards.
If you wish to assist us, let us try to include this in this part of section 4 so that the minister commits to meeting the highest safety standards. Be they international or Canadian, I want to ensure that at all times you will be meeting the highest safety standards.
If you want us to break this impasse, then you, the government's legal experts, must tell us where to include it. I don't mind where you include it, but I don't want it to go unmentioned. Several witnesses told us that you may make mistakes. I want to ensure that you will not make mistakes and that each time you take a position, you will meet the highest safety standards. I will support this. I tried to say that these would be international standards. They can be Canadian standards but the important point is that they be the highest standards. Let's put this somewhere in this section where it suits you and where it suits us.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In terms of this amendment, my thought is that the intent of this proposed subsection 4.2(1) is that it would be the header of all of the paragraphs that follow, from paragraph 4.2(1)(a), 4.2(1)(b), etc., to paragraph 4.2(1)(k), I think it is. Whether it's by putting a paragraph before paragraph 4.2(1)(a) or 4.2(1)(b), or whatever, I think that's the intent. My suspicion is that it has to be paragraph 4.2(1)(a). That's my first point.
Second, in terms of standards, would it be accurate to say that in the case of proficiency testing of pilots, Canada's standards are lower than the international ones, which I believe require testing every six months, while we now only require testing every two years?
4:20 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
In those situations, we have alternate means of ensuring as high a level of safety as the ICAO was requiring. There are other LOFT line indoctrinations; there is other additional training required during the year, so that meets the equivalent level of safety as was imposed by ICAO.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, I think we've had some helpful suggestions from all four parties here. I would suggest, given that we will need to take a few minutes, I think, to work through what we want to see in the bill, that this is a clause we should stand aside, given that the time we've reserved is almost up. I would expect that we'd be able to tackle the two issues, this issue and the previous issue, if we stood this aside until Wednesday first thing, and I'm sure we'd be able to come to a conclusion.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Again, Mr. Chair, I want to focus our attention on concerns that I raised and that were echoed by Ms. Stanfield. What we're trying to do is avoid ambiguity in the legislation. We're trying to avoid any needless litigation that will arise in the future because of the wording of the clause.
Ms. Stanfield, are you satisfied that, given the way the current bill is worded, without this particular amendment, the desires expressed here at this table, especially by the opposition side, to achieve the “highest standards possible” will actually be met by the current bill rather than by this amendment? Is the amendment we're talking about necessary to achieve what the members at this table--I think--generally want to achieve?
4:25 p.m.
Chief, Aviation Security Regulations, Department of Transport
In my opinion, no, but—
4:25 p.m.
Chief, Aviation Security Regulations, Department of Transport
I believe when you look at all the pieces put together that Mr. Reinhardt referred to, we've got the link into ICAO and the regulation-making authorities, and we have statements in the existing paragraphs in section 4.2 that make it clear that the minister has responsibility for safety and security and for doing things to make sure those are at a level that will be acceptable to Canadians. I think the risk of introducing an amendment like 4.2 is that it creates uncertainty, the way it's drafted right now. It's very difficult to assess how that will be met, whereas right now, under section 4.2, the minister has authority to do the things he needs to do that aren't regulatory--build the infrastructure, make the agreements with people, and provide funding.
Section 4.9 of the act is where the real nuts and bolts of the safety regulation come in, because that deals with the Governor in Council's authority to make the rules, and we're already bound to make rules that at least meet, and in most cases exceed, the ICAO minimum requirements. So I think it's actually covered off.