Transport Committee on May 30th, 2007

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

Mr. Chairman, I have to say that amendment G-2 is an improvement to what we have.

This is one of the areas of the bill that I focused on, the matter of the designated organizations. I have expressed a great deal of concern with a number of factors. One of these has been addressed: the high risk, low risk concern. However, there were other concerns I had expressed, and others also, concerning the great extent of the delegation of authority here.

I understand that delegation of authority at some point is required for any organization to be able to function. But to delegate entire authority, including the authority to create regulations and create standards, and all from within—basically, you've taken the entire responsibility and put it somewhere else. I had and I still have a great deal of difficulty with that.

The reason I'm speaking up now is that I might want to support amendment G-2 if the rest doesn't follow. But if the rest follows, of course, then amendment G-2 is not required. Having said what you said—that if this passes, all the other amendments are withdrawn—I'm forced to vote against it in order to at least consider the other amendment, which is to delete the references to this proposed section entirely.

If we didn't delete it, then this would be an improvement over what's there. But I'm saying I'm not satisfied that it goes as far as I'd like to see it go, and you're putting me in a bit of a quandary. Just so you know, that explains why I won't be able to support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a similar point of view. The designated organizations are something that many witnesses identified as a quite major flaw in Bill C-6. We have, from three opposition parties, similar amendments to try to make the bill operative in a way that doesn't present the danger many witnesses felt it presented.

So either the government withdraws amendment G-2 or we stand it aside, but I certainly won't be voting for it.

I think it's a bit like putting the cart before the horse to consider this when we have substantial amendments from the three opposition parties that deal with that proposed section. It would be, I think, more effective to proceed to the BQ motion or the Liberal motion, and then after we've had the debate and discussion there, if we needed to consider amendment G-2 we could come back to it at that point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

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

I have had some concerns about the designated organizations from the beginning, Mr. Chairman. I know that we may have a long debate about this, but I hope not. I would like the government to understand clearly that Transport Canada sometimes tends to have a bad influence on the government. They have not managed to convince me.

With respect to the safety management system, I managed to come to terms with that and asked the questions that had to be asked, even though there remain some problems in the large companies where it is in place. I read the Skyservice report that was published in 2007 about the systems in place in companies, and it is quite awful. I'm having a great deal of trouble getting one thing into my head. Until the large companies have a very effective safety management system, how can organizations be designated to replace Transport Canada to supervise the systems? Because that is in fact what they will be doing, they will helping supervise part of the system. I have a great deal of trouble with that idea.

If you were to wait a few years to bring forward a bill, once the system is firmly in place in the large companies, then decide that the time had come where there should perhaps be organizations designated in another part of the industry, then I would agree. However, at this time, that is far from clear to me. I am having trouble coming to terms with the safety management system for the largest companies, which do have the resources to put it in place. In addition, there are some problems with it, and so on. I do not want to get into the rail sector, but we have seen what is happening there.

I think these organizations will become supervisors for part of the industry, and I have a lot of trouble with that idea. First of all, there are few organizations of this type, and of the people that appeared before the committee, I do not think they have enough skills to do that, including the representatives of the private carriers. One person came in to explain to us—I do not have his name, but I could find it for you—and he will probably be part of a designated organization. However, even if there are 700 or 800 members, I am having a great deal of trouble understanding how an organization that supervises these members will be successful, when a company with its employees has failed to have an effective system. I'm having a great deal of difficulty with this.

In my opinion, the entire paragraph and the part of the act on designated organizations are premature. If you had told me that this part of the bill would come into force in three or five years, perhaps we could have talked about this. Make me an offer, but this part should not come into force at the same time as the bill, which targets the largest companies. Then there will be an organization between these large companies and other parts of the industry that are less well-organized.

I am telling you it is too early. I am having trouble with this whole part of the bill on designated organizations. However, if we were to implement the part of the bill on designated organizations in three years, then we could negotiate. Talk about the proposal that this should not apply at the same time as the safety management systems are set up, because there may be some problems in the large companies. In my opinion, Transport Canada should have control over all the other industries. That is my view.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

I did listen carefully, Mr. Laframboise, and I don't know if we can identify the particular issue you have as far as time of implementation, of coming into force, is concerned.

I looked at amendment BQ-13, your particular amendment there, and I was wondering if there would be any common ground to implement the parts, because I think there's some actual value in what you're suggesting in amendment BQ-13, and I think it could be worked in after “The Minister of Transport may designate, from among organizations that operate in low-risk, non-commercial sectors of the aviation industry”. I don't know if that kills the proposed section or not as far as the department goes, but certainly I notice that your amendments don't deal with the implementation of the act or the coming into force of this particular proposed section, but instead, deal with some other issues. I don't see any conflict in it going in there, quite frankly, and being part of the government amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

Of course, we have amendment BQ-13 in case amendment BQ-12 is not passed. So I will withdraw the latter, as well as all the designated organizations.

You're making suggestions to the government, but I repeat that I would feel more comfortable if this part of the bill were to come into force a few years after the bill has a whole comes into force. We could talk about the bill as such, but in the meantime, I must defend the position that this whole part of the bill should be removed. I must do that.

I understand the principle. I want you to understand the point. I think it is too soon to do this. So I am withdrawing this. However, if I were told that this part of the bill will come into force in a few years, we could perhaps look at this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Reinhardt.

[Franz Reinhardt]

First of all, I'd like to say that the provision here is to allow the minister to designate; it's not done. There will also be regulations made to limit the type of designation—it's not a delegation, but a designation—and there will be regulations to limit the type of designation.

There is a procedure for an aeronautical study to determine whether it's a high- or low-risk segment of the industry. Of course, this is available to everybody. This is available to the committee responsible for that type of activity to review as well. So I think there are lots of means of allowing the government to review what's happening if there is a designation.

As I said, we wanted to use that designation in segments that in some cases are not even currently regulated. You have to remember that the basic rules with respect to certification of aircraft, rules of the air, licensing of pilots, are all there. Those guys will all have to follow those rules, and Transport can enforce those rules. It's only the overview, if you want.... The minister doesn't lose his oversight authority over it, but it gives those people who have the best expertise in that field the possibility to get people together in association.

Let me give you an example. Out west, you have crop-spraying activities in which they spray crops in farmers' fields. Those people are conducting business. It's only the pilot responsible for doing this; there's no passenger on board. It's a very special type of expertise that they have—they know what they're doing. If there is an association capable of overlooking this, it's good for Transport Canada. We can put our resources where there's a better safety payoff. We can still monitor, and the minister doesn't lose the authority to look after it.

This is the type of activity we would like, if we're allowed, to designate after a study. We don't want fare-paying passengers; we don't want in-air transportation of passengers.

I think it's giving a good fettering to the current provision. That's all I can say. If you remove the commercial component, of course, it kills the whole thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean and then Mr. Julian.

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

From the department's viewpoint and also from Mr. Laframboise's position, could you see a coming into force section, for instance, that would suggest that this could be not implemented until three years from the date of this proclamation? Would that be a difficulty for the department?

[Franz Reinhardt]

A reasonable time for coming into force would be acceptable, I would think.

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

Well, the government would be in favour of that if the rest of the section carried.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

That's not the only problem with amendment G-2, Mr. Chair. Again I stress that I think the preference would be that the government simply allow this to stand aside or withdraw amendment G-2; that would make sense.

It's fair to say there are a number of difficulties with this amendment. One is the definition around a designation that may “not involve high risks” in relation to aviation safety and security. Well, what is a high risk? Is a moderate level of risk or a medium level of risk acceptable? I don't believe it is. To say that this designation does not involve “high risk” in relation to aviation safety and security for me is very much a red flag.

I think to this point in the bill we've been working through it methodically and cooperatively. Not everyone has exactly what they'd like to see in the bill, but we've been trying to push for the highest level of safety and security at all times. Now we have the government amendment being brought forward that changes the definition, reverses it, and refers to a designation as something not involving high risk—I guess accepting anything short of high risk: moderate risk.

Essentially, that is a major problem with this amendment, I think. I'm not sure whether that was considered. Perhaps the government didn't take into consideration all the other amendments we've brought forward to date that have essentially reinforced that high safety standard right through Bill C-6. This reverses that, and I find it disturbing.

The other element, of course, is that the only activities that are excluded would be scheduled air transportation of fare-paying passengers, which means fare-paying passengers who are on unscheduled air transportation obviously could be included. Those are two difficulties within this amendment.

Again, I'm not sure whether, when the government put it forward, they were anticipating or not all of the strengthening in the bill that we've brought forward to date. But very clearly this amendment contradicts the direction we've been heading in as a committee until now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Reinhardt, just a brief response.

[Franz Reinhardt]

On the low risk versus high risk, I would not have any difficulty in the thing reading the other way around--low risk, as opposed to not representing high risk. The proposed amendment was reworked by Justice, and this is the reason the wording was.... But we have no difficulty there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bélanger.

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

Chairman, amendment G-2 addresses some things, but leaves a lot of questions. It does not address the one item of that section of the act that I had difficulty with, and that is proposed subsection 5.31(3), which essentially says:A designated organization has all the powers necessary to monitor compliance with the standards and rules that it establishes.

That's where I have a problem. I think this is delegation gone too far. I know that we've been given an example--and only one--when that question is answered, and that's for the gliders, même pas des monoplans, the ultralights, but I believe it involves much more. If I'm wrong, please, I'll sit corrected. I believe it involves private aviation to a great extent--not commercial, but corporations that have jets, individuals who have their own planes. They may not fall into this or under these exceptions. They may fall under designated organizations. Construction of aircraft might fall into that. You have helicopters that seem...keenly interested.

Then Mr. Julian raised issues, which I'm going to reinforce. The wording of amendment G-2, proposed paragraph 5.3(1)(b) says: the organization's activities do not include the scheduled air transportation of fare-paying passengers

So could it include the unscheduled transportation? Could it include the scheduled transportation of non fare-paying, the unscheduled transportation of non fare-paying? What does that involve? What's the universe there? We haven't defined that at all.

That's why I think the delegation of authority to designated organizations, where it's wide open in terms of their establishing their own standards and monitoring them, is going too far. That's why I think we need to hold back here.

I understand that there's need for regulation in some areas, and I accept that. But currently, the government and the transport department and the Minister of Transport have all the authority to craft such regulation and, as the process unfolds, get it out there and responded to and enforced. Currently, if anybody wants to be exempted, they can. But the responsibility comes through the appropriate mechanisms to seek and obtain such an exemption, through a Privy Council decision, for instance, or through a regulatory process. So the department has currently the flexibility to do some of what it wishes to do. But there's a retention of some responsibility, which this may vacate a little too much for my taste.

Throughout the hearings, I've focused on this one because of that in particular, and I've quoted it a number of times. I don't think it is appropriate to give to a designated authority the authority to make rules and standards and then enforce them. So they've come full cycle, and basically we could claim that we weren't responsible at all, and I think it's just going too far.

My perception of this may not be shared, and I respect that. But I believe it is shared by a number of people, and I think we have to be careful here. That is why I was hoping we could deal with the notion of deleting, essentially, the references to designated organizations first, because I would not want, if we can't delete them—if there's no will around the table to delete them—that we then not consider some of the improvements that the government has tried to make through G-2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

I was just going to say I was looking for a cooperative approach from the member, and the only approach I heard is that he wants to eliminate the designated organizations. Or did I misunderstand that? That's what I understood it to be.

Certainly we're prepared, as the government, to implement a three-year coming into force for this proposed section. Certainly I understand Mr. Julian's perspective in relation to the high risk, to change the wording from a negative to a positive. I think that is a good suggestion, and indeed I'd look forward to a friendly amendment from that.

But I think the other reality is that after the other section we voted on, the minister has an obligation, an oversight responsibility. He still maintains a responsibility. He can designate that responsibility. Certainly he designates most responsibility to someone. I'm certain he's not going through each plane and inspecting them himself. But I think it would make sense that if there is an organization out there that has expertise in that particular field—and I'm suggesting in a narrow field, such as gliders or ultralights, or indeed an organization such as the crop sprayers organization—I would think they would be better fit than the minister would be or even the experts at Transport Canada.

But I'm looking to the Bloc and also to the NDP. Are they prepared to accept those two amendments, make friendly amendments to that? The government would be prepared to accept that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

Well, Mr. Chair, we have to move on to estimates. I would certainly take Mr. Jean's comments under consideration, but I would hope when we come back to this next Monday that we would begin with BQ-12 and that we would simply stand aside G-2 for the reasons that Monsieur Bélanger, Monsieur Laframboise, and others have mentioned. I hope that we would stand that aside and come back to the other amendment.