Evidence of meeting #7 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was transport.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Richard Balnis  Senior Officer, Research, Canadian Union of Public Employees
Ron Smith  National Representative, National Office, Canadian Auto Workers

10:10 a.m.

Bloc

Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

All right. What is the procedure in Canada? Does the employee make a report to the company? How does it work?

10:10 a.m.

National Representative, National Office, Canadian Auto Workers

Ron Smith

Under SMS, they can make a report to their company. The best example I can think of where we have something that functions like this is, again, at Nav Canada, which is the air navigation operator, where an individual can file a confidential report. Their name is stripped off the report and then the company does their investigation. We have this in that company. On SMS, that's where I came from with the introduction of safety management systems, and that's what I'm most familiar with, sir.

10:10 a.m.

Bloc

Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC

And, as you said, Mr. Balnis, the company can simply say “thank you for filing a report” and do nothing about it. Is that right?

10:10 a.m.

Senior Officer, Research, Canadian Union of Public Employees

Richard Balnis

Yes. Our overwhelming example is, “Thank you for your concern, and it is covered by your collective agreement”. There is no response, and people just notice that things aren't fixed and things aren't done. That's why people ask why they should play a one-way game. The sad part is that there are reports of increased employee reports, but we don't know that. We don't see them. We don't sit down with the employer and say, “Oh my goodness, look, there are 50 of these reports exactly the same. so maybe we should look to see if there's something here”.

It's all for them to look after. It's a safety “management” system; there is no worker involvement. That is our greatest concern. Eventually our members simply ask why they should fill out something that leads to nothing.

Just to give you some examples, it took five years for our occupational health and safety committee to get a whisk broom, at $1.79, to pick up broken glass that falls in a galley. Because there are injuries when things happen, boom... That was five years of constant struggle by a health and safety committee. It took three years to deal with an injury where a flight attendant was climbing down from a bunk in the dark and stubbed her toe. The employer said they were not interested. We brought in a safety officer. Eventually, a flight attendant stepped down into the next bunk and broke a flight attendant's ribs. It took three years and two directions to do that under part II of the Canada Labour Code.

Under SMS, we have none of that leverage. It is entirely discretionary. That is the frustrating part.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Merci, monsieur Laframboise.

Mr. Bevington.

10:15 a.m.

NDP

Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In response to questioning from Mr. Watson, yes, the NDP has fought long and hard on the safety issues, and we did fight on Bill C-6--and later on Bill C-7--because it wasn't simply the whistle-blower content of that bill that was offensive to us. I think the record will show that over and over again.

I'm interested in going back to this policy, because I think the policy is very important here. I'm glad you brought it in front of us. I have some questions. You say that section 5.0 has been added on. When was it added on? In February of 2010?

10:15 a.m.

Senior Officer, Research, Canadian Union of Public Employees

Richard Balnis

If you go to the front of tab 5, you'll see “Staff Instruction” and “Surveillance Procedures”, and then “Effective Date: 2010-02-08”. I believe that's February.

10:15 a.m.

NDP

Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT

So this has been in front of us, these new other surveillance activities. How long would it take to actually analyze what those surveillance activities are going to be and the staffing required for it? I'd say that this question of CUPE or the CAW coming up with answers about staffing requirements is still based on a policy that hasn't been fully explained and was only brought out and implemented in February of 2010. I think we're still playing catch-up here.

Now, when it comes to actually doing the surveillance, does section 5.0 fall under assessment procedures section 7.0?

10:15 a.m.

Senior Officer, Research, Canadian Union of Public Employees

Richard Balnis

No. I believe that if you look at section 5.2, they are additional surveillance activities. As for what's listed on page 10, those activities are additional, dependent on resources. Everything that happens from section 7.0 on is a separate process.

10:15 a.m.

NDP

Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT

But on assessment procedures, I imagine that surveillance is an assessment on the ground. Is that not correct?

10:15 a.m.

Senior Officer, Research, Canadian Union of Public Employees

Richard Balnis

No, they're very different. As Monsieur Grégoire explained, in an assessment they come in and do in-depth questioning to see if you have an SMS that works. That's what section 7.0 does. We're saying that's fine, you go ahead and do that, but you also need the section 5.0 activities. We're concerned--

10:15 a.m.

NDP

Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT

Within section 7.0, for planned on-site review there's a 10-week prior notice. What would apply to surveillance activities under section 5.0? Would that be no notice, a week's notice, or 10 days' notice? Or does that surveillance activity fall under assessment procedures section 7.0, which is 10 weeks' prior notice for any on-site inspection?

10:15 a.m.

Senior Officer, Research, Canadian Union of Public Employees

Richard Balnis

I hope not, but I can't answer that question. Section 5.0 is just those two pages there.

10:15 a.m.

NDP

Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT

Yes. There's no indication of how these very important surveillance activities are going to be conducted. In the absence of that, wouldn't that fall under the general assessment procedures for SMS?

10:15 a.m.

Senior Officer, Research, Canadian Union of Public Employees

Richard Balnis

I would hope not, because then that is watering down of section 5.0. All I can see is on page 10 of 66. It says, “When and as applicable”, but it doesn't go into the detail. So I think you've raised another criticism of this policy: it's too vague. It should actually specify what you should do. That detail would help us have greater comfort with these section 5.0 inspections.

10:15 a.m.

NDP

Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT

I thank you. We'll be giving this policy more consideration. Quite clearly, everyone on the committee is very interested in how it actually works out.

What kinds of enforcement actions has the Department of Transport undertaken in the last year? The only one I've heard about is shutting down an airline because it didn't have a manager for flight attendants--or replacing a manager for flight attendants. What kinds of things shut down an airline under enforcement action these days?

10:20 a.m.

Senior Officer, Research, Canadian Union of Public Employees

Richard Balnis

The whole question of the implementation of the enforcement policy is a matter that I think you should have Transport come in to answer. I feel I've already ventured onto thin ice by just bringing you their own documents. Now I have to explain them...? I think you should ask them to bring in their enforcement policy and explain it, lest I not understand--

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Thank you. I have to end it there. We're over time.

Mr. Jean.

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Frankly, I wasn't going to ask any questions today, but a couple of things you've said were actually a bit alarming to me, to be very blunt. First, you suggested that you were users of the system. I certainly hope, for my sake as an actual user of the system, that you'd be more partners of the airlines and partners of the other sectors of the airline industry, the aviation sector, in Canada. Because what constitutes a partnership is that you're going to work together to get things done and keep Canadians safe, and I would like to think that you're more partners than users. I just want to tell you that your terminology alarmed me, quite frankly.

The other thing that bothered me quite a bit was when you were asked by Mr. Watson--and Mr. Mayes, and it was pursued by Mr. Volpe--how many inspectors we needed, you couldn't come up with it. You said it wasn't your job to decide how many inspectors were needed, but at the same time, you were criticizing and saying there weren't enough inspectors. You said you have no input on how many there should be, except that you would be satisfied if the levels were brought up to where they were before, because there are some unfilled positions.

This is what has come across to me in this discussion. I feel like I'm listening to Chicken Little telling me the sky is falling because he can't get a $2 sweeper broom. Quite frankly, after being here for five years and seeing a lot of evidence before me, that is not what I take from the aviation sector. I think it's a very safe sector, and Transport Canada does a good job, for the most part, in relation to that. They came forward and said there might be some problems with the implementation of SMS in some sectors of the airline industry. I would think you would embrace that after your submissions on SMS in the last few years.

The final thing that alarmed me was that you suggested--in my mind--that the Labour Code is tossed out the window when it comes to SMS; that the Labour Code takes second priority to the SMS system in relation to somebody stubbing their toe, I think it was, and stepping on somebody else who cracked a rib, or whatever.

I don't really have a question for the witnesses, but when Chicken Little runs around and around, sooner or later he loses credibility. I just want to be very clear on that. If you have some positive suggestions to make to this committee on the level of inspectors, we would certainly encourage you to come forward with that information--not just to criticize. Those are my comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Be very brief.

10:20 a.m.

National Representative, National Office, Canadian Auto Workers

Ron Smith

I would like to comment on what was said.

First, I said we're utilizing Transport Canada. We are partners in safety at the airlines where our members work, but we utilize Transport Canada as a user rather than as a partner. Our members get their licences from Transport Canada. They write tests for Transport Canada. They utilize Transport Canada more as a service or a service provider than as a partnership. But they are definitely in partnership on safety with the companies where they work. That's absolutely 100% there.

Secondly, I think Mr. Balnis made the comments about the Canada Labour Code as far as safety goes. We have more avenues--and I think this is where he was going--as a bargaining union through the Canada Labour Code under health and safety than under SMS, because the union isn't part of it.

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

To be clear, the Labour Code has criminal liability and directors' liability in relation to things done by the directors of those corporations that may be in breach. It makes it sound as if the Labour Code is tossed out, and it's not at all. I just want Canadians to be clear that these laws continue to protect them.

10:20 a.m.

National Representative, National Office, Canadian Auto Workers

Ron Smith

Sir, that's not what I said. I never said that.

10:20 a.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

I understand you didn't, Mr. Smith, but it was said by one of the witnesses, Mr. Balnis.

10:20 a.m.

National Representative, National Office, Canadian Auto Workers

Ron Smith

On issues of safety, we're there. On SMS, we're not saying to throw it out. On the numbers of inspectors, by doing the additional inspections, I don't know how many people that would take, sir.