Transport Committee on Oct. 19th, 2009

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

How do you achieve this? I'm interested because for a period of time I've been studying the parks in the Rockies--Jasper and Banff in particular—the isolation and the ability to stop what ultimately will take place if it is isolated. How do you go about doing that without setting aside more tracts of land where the species won't become isolated?

[John McDonnell]

We've been advocating for the establishment of a buffer zone around Gatineau Park, especially toward the north so that connections can be maintained between Gatineau Park and areas north of the park. There are a number of fairly interesting areas north of Gatineau Park, including some new protected areas under the Quebec protected area strategy. We want to make sure those connections are maintained.

Even to the south, there is potential in working with landowners. We encourage the National Capital Commission to work with landowners to maintain natural features on their property; for instance, between the Eardley Escarpment and the Ottawa River. There is potential there to work with landowners. I think a lot of it is outreach and education, because the park is surrounded by private property. That's a major issue.

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

There are approximately 1.7 million visitors to the park per year. Is that correct?

I'm interested in this brochure. You have 20,000 members across Canada in CPAWS, I understand. You also mentioned in the pamphlet that you've done some surveys, that you consulted them. I think the exact words were “some cross-section of park users”. Can you tell me how many park users you talked to for this final data, or was the data accumulated by your board of directors? How was the data and the empirical evidence that you calculated and put into this book actually received?

[John McDonnell]

It was really a random sample of park users we met inside the park. The idea was to gather a cross-section of opinions.

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

As somebody who used to teach statistics and is interested in a proper sample survey--you have 1.7 million people using the park--I'm asking how many people your organization talked to who use the park.

[John McDonnell]

For this booklet, I don't really know. We could get that information. I don't have it with me here.

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

Is it possible that it's in the thousands of people?

[John McDonnell]

No, I don't think so. But there have been polls.

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

Could it be in the hundreds?

[John McDonnell]

Probably.

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

If you could provide that data to us, I'd really appreciate it.

If you don't mind, if you could also get us--through the chair--some of the other information that you've referred to, specifically in relation to the buffer zone and some of the recommendations you've made, I'd appreciate it.

I think Mr. Watson has one question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I apologize, but we do have some motions to entertain.

With that, I will thank our guests. Thank you for your information. The committee is going to take a brief recess while our guests move away from the table, and then we'll come back to do motions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

If we could get everybody back to their seats, we'll get going.

Monsieur Proulx, on a point of order.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, I see that on the 21st we'll be visited by municipalities; and then on the 26th, probably by representatives of provinces. To make it much easier for everybody concerned, could we maybe ask the National Capital Commission to supply us with maps so we could refer to them when these witnesses appear in front of the committee, so we know exactly what they are talking about.

Surely the NCC could supply us with maps. There are representatives from the National Capital Commission in the room.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I will ask Bonnie to make that request on our behalf.

Moving to committee business, according to the orders of the day, we have a notice of motion from Mr. Bevington, the member of Parliament for Western Arctic:

That the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities engage in a study of Transport Canada's enforcement of air safety regulations and implementation of safety management systems for the aviation industry, and report the results of the study to the House of Commons.

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Since I was appointed transport critic, I've been struck by how important aviation safety is and how important it is that we take our responsibility for that very seriously.

On April 21, I hosted in Ottawa a round table on aviation safety, and I heard how reports from inspectors and craft investigators are not receiving the proper attention. I learned that Transport Canada is actually ending inspections of many aircraft. A federal program to audit airline safety procedures has been cancelled and Transport Canada intends to stop regulating the frequency of inspections. The effect is to leave airline operators in a position of balancing business pressures and safety concerns, with minimal or no direct oversight.

I learned as well how people who deal with these issues are being treated in the industry and how they have suffered consequences from bringing forward their concerns. I can name a number of people who gave testimony in front of our round table. These results are available on a video recording at www.SafeSkies.ca. I have hosted press conferences on this to make public what I've learned. I have asked questions in the House as well.

Following a report on the CBC's the fifth estate, we see there has been a softening in the government's position. I think they are willing to take a good look at this to reassure Canadians that we are acting in their best interests when it comes to aviation safety.

The core of this problem is the implementation of an approach called safety management systems. It is a move away from prescriptive regulation, or criteria to which the industry must adhere, to performance-based regulation, which describes objectives and allows each regulated entity to develop its own system of achieving the objectives. In other words, the industry must develop its own policies and systems to reduce risk, which should include implementing systems for reporting and correcting shortcomings.

It's not that this system is not good. The International Civil Aviation Organization advocates SMS, but only as an additional layer to regular audits by governmental authorities--in this case, Transport Canada.

Justice Moshansky, who conducted the inquiry into an aircraft crash at Dryden, Ontario, said:

It is extremely naive to think that under SMS a financially strapped operator is, on its own initiative, going to place necessary safety expenditures ahead of economic survival. The historical record hardly inspires faith in the voluntary implementation of safety measures by some such carriers, especially in the absence of strong regulatory oversight.

My office continues to hear calls for action. I want to emphasize that the most important action we take is to protect our citizens, and so I am putting forward this motion so we can get that reassurance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Comments?

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

I'm going to vote for Mr. Bevington's motion. We have already discussed the matter of safety management systems. You will remember that at the time, Minister Cannon stated that he did not intend to reduce the number of inspectors because all of the inspection work still had to be done. We have to make sure that the work continues and we should call Transport Canada and the inspector pilots' union to appear. That way, we will know what is going on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chairman, you'll recall that the committee was engaged and taken up with the study of an SMS system when we were dealing with what was then, I believe, Bill C-7. Was it Bill C-11? I think it has changed now. At any rate, it was part of a legislative study. While I think we all in principle would agree with the motion Mr. Bevington has presented, I'm more in tune with what Monsieur Laframboise said: that while we can all agree in principle that the essential issues are whether the prescriptive legislation has been displaced by an ad hoc adherence to a voluntary safety management system, my understanding is that essentially the department implemented an SMS system notwithstanding the collapse of the legislation, which the NDP prevented from being implemented with a hoist motion. That's not a partisan comment; it's just what happened. The department went ahead, at any rate, and put in place the mechanisms to engage an SMS system.

So I think Monsieur Laframboise has a very legitimate point. If in fact that did take place, what this committee ought to do is at least convene before it members of the department and the airline pilots associations to see whether in fact the system is working and what its shortfalls are.

I hasten to add that we have two decisions to make. One is to accept the principle of this, which I would agree with. The other one is to fit this into a chronology, a timetable, that we have already started and are well on our way. I imagine if we accept that, then this will be an item for discussion at the steering committee when it next meets.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I really wish Mr. Kennedy were still here so he could have an opportunity to see how vigorously we debate issues that may not be on his particular timetable but are certainly are on the committee's timetable.

I would agree with this in principle as well, but I agree with Mr. Volpe and Mr. Laframboise. It's pretty consistent. I would agree with that motion. But I think in essence it needs to be narrowed to focus on exactly what your accusations are from the people you're talking to. Certainly we have studied this for a long period of time and the general principles of the motion itself, but if you could narrow it down, I would be interested in spending one day trying to get to the bottom of any accusations that have been put forward to you, because certainly they are not what I understand the government is currently doing or directing. So it would be very, very important to get to the bottom of it. And certainly one day, I think, would not be outrageous, if everyone else agreed. But let's focus on what we want to study, because we could study your general motion for the next 50 years and still come to no real conclusion.

That would be my recommendation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Final comment, Mr. Bevington?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Well, having heard that, I'm interested in first, as you say, actually engaging with what the problem is, where the difficulties lie, where on the one hand you have regulations that set Transport Canada in one direction and on the other hand you have a system set up that perhaps doesn't meet up with those regulations. So that would be, I guess, the first step in this kind of work. I would like to see that go ahead, and if that's what the committee wants to start with and to have an opportunity to take a look at, I would think that if we can fit that into the next number of months or before Christmas, it would be very useful. I think that would be a good step.

Aviation traffic has increased by about 50% over the last two decades, and the number of inspectors has dropped by about 15%. So we're seeing that this process is taking place in the absence of legislation. We have a responsibility to ensure that this moves ahead in a good fashion.

Anyway, if people support this, I would be quite willing to work with you on the steering committee to ensure that it doesn't tie up this committee for too long.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I suggest that rather than voting on the motion today, we refer it to the subcommittee that I hope to have on the fourth. I think everybody is in agreement with what you're saying. We can perhaps work out the details and then present it to the committee.

Are you comfortable with that, Mr. Bevington? If you're not, we'll call the vote.