Evidence of meeting #52 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was fatigue.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)) Liberal Judy Sgro
This is meeting number 52 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, 42nd Parliament. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are commencing a study of aviation safety.
Has your comment to do with our agenda here, Mr. Iacono?
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Good morning, Madam Chair.
Good morning, esteemed witnesses.
Madam Chair, I would like to table my motion on air safety.
Liberal
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Of course.
That the study on air safety focus on the following: CATSA's service delivery model; the Civil Aviation Surveillance Program; the work conditions of aircraft personnel and inspectors, including their training; and security screening for employees working in secure areas of airports; And that, in consultation with the committee members, the chair be empowered to organize the schedule and resources necessary to execute the study.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Given that we have witnesses here today, are you moving the motion that we deal with this now or in the last portion of our meeting?
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Madam Chair, I know that we have witnesses here this morning. I apologize for interrupting the meeting, but my motion is directly related to today's study. Consequently I think it is very important that we give it priority.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will try to be brief, because we have to return to our study.
I have to say that I cannot support this motion. It totally changes the direction of the study on aviation safety we had agreed to do.
However, I recognize the relevance of the topic that is being proposed. It is likely a reaction to the news story that was broadcast by TVA last week. It would be entirely appropriate that our committee examine that matter. Unfortunately, we are being asked to accept that “air safety” means the same thing as “airport safety”, although these are two completely different topics of study.
Madam Chair, if you tell me that you want the committee to do another study on airport safety, I would agree with that completely, but we only have six short meeting hours to examine at least six or seven topics that involve air safety directly. The member is trying to get us to study airport safety. It seems to me that this is a substantive change.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I would support my colleague in his assertion that this motion appears to be an attempt to change the entire focus of this study that was, I would suggest, previously discussed and agreed to by all members at the table.
It really doesn't make any sense to be rewriting the terms of a study the day that the study begins. We all submitted witnesses based on the focus area that was previously agreed to in this committee on February 23.
I think the Library of Parliament has already prepared its briefing. The briefing is based on a work plan that was agreed to by all members. We have the schedule already in place and I'm sure witnesses have been contacted.
It's also somewhat interesting that the mover of the motion has included the wording “that, in consultation with the Committee Members, the Chair be empowered to organize the schedule”, when that has already happened. This study has already been organized and a lot of work and energy has been put into it.
I recognize that something happened last week that could definitely be a component of this study, but to suggest that the study now focus on CATSA is, I think, somewhat disingenuous.
Thank you.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Indeed, I was a bit surprised by the government reaction, by Mr. Iacono's reaction, to the very simple motion I introduced. The motion simply asks that the committee organize a meeting that would not necessarily be one of the six we had already planned. Its purpose would be to discuss safety at the Montreal-Trudeau Airport following the TVA report. I don't understand that reaction, because the motion I tabled was quite simple. We would invite airport authorities to come and reassure us about the situation and make information available to the members of the committee.
You know, when problems arise, when media highlight concerns, especially regarding safety in airports, it is part of our role and our duty as parliamentarians to pay attention and to dig deeper. We have to know if we, as parliamentarians, have a role to play in safety management at the Montreal-Trudeau Airport. We are talking about one Canadian airport, but there are others. I thought the motion simply wanted to give us the opportunity to hold an additional meeting.
This meeting could perhaps even be held at the Montreal-Trudeau Airport, at a different time than our usual meeting hours for our study on air safety. In that way, we could examine the situation on site and report to Canadians on our perception of safety at the Montreal-Trudeau Airport. It is our responsibility to reassure Canadians and to see whether there are lapses. If as parliamentarians we do not see any, it is our role to say so, to repeat that and to reassure Canadians that airport authorities have radicalization issues well in hand. We also must say so if we believe that is not the case.
And so that was the sole purpose of the motion we introduced. On the following day, I became aware of Mr. Iacono's motion, which completely changes the direction of the study on aviation safety we are beginning today. I see that representatives of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada are present here now. They have things to say, they too had to go before the media to make themselves heard because Transport Canada has to follow up on their recommendations. I think that is something we should take into account. That being said, we had come up with a good schedule, we had worked on it together, and we have to continue in that vein.
Madam Chair, I don't want to take up any more time. Today we are to hear the viewpoint of the witnesses from the Transportation Safety Board, and it would be unfortunate to deprive ourselves of that expertise. I am thus going to oppose Mr. Iacono's motion. I will be tabling my own motion later. In the meantime, we could perhaps agree to examine the issue of safety at the Montreal-Trudeau Airport without disrupting the schedule of the aviation safety study we are just beginning.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much, Mr. Berthold. I acknowledge that you also have a motion that's duly here before us as well today on that particular issue. I thank you for tabling that.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Madam Chair, since we are discussing the motion I am going to table later, I would simply like to read it so that people know what it is about. We may not be debating it immediately. If we manage to come to an agreement, it may not be tabled.
The motion reads as follows:
That, as part of its study on aviation safety...
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Mr. Berthold had the floor. I referenced his motion because I thought he would have read it into the record.
I guess that reminded you that you had not.
I'm going to make sure that I'm following the rules here.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Madam Chair, I am not submitting my motion, I am simply reading it, and I am following up on your invitation to explain it.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Very well. The motion reads as follows:
That, as part of its study on aviation safety, the committee hear promptly from witnesses regarding the security measures in place at Montreal-Trudeau Airport to protect travellers and employees, and invite representatives from the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Transport Canada and Public Safety Canada.
That is the motion I tabled last week, which prompted the government party to introduce its motion. If we discuss mine quickly, we could still hold our meeting and do our duty as parliamentarians.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I simply want to explain the objective of my motion. The study we are beginning today is vague. We have not defined clear objectives. We don't have specific points upon which to focus our study. We thus run the risk of simply touching on the many aspects involved in aviation safety.
Take our study on railway safety as an example. The committee had determined four key points upon which to focus our study so that we could do effective and useful work.
We have to do the same thing if we want this study to be credible. I reread the discussions we had in committee about air safety, as well as the notices and motions that were presented.
The motion I am putting forward would allow us to focus our study on points that are essential for air safety and the safety of passengers. In addition, it incorporates Ms. Block's motion concerning CATSA. It also integrates Mr. Berthold's motion concerning security screenings for employees following the worrisome revelations broadcast on the J.E. program.
It is important that Canadians trust our security system in airports, and that they be safe in all Canadian airports, not only the one in Montreal.
Mr. Berthold's motion is only about one issue discussed in the media. It is important that this issue be the subject of a rigorous and complete study by the members of this committee. That is the reason why my motion does not focus strictly on the Montreal-Trudeau Airport. Our committee has to study the entire system.
Of course, we could ask representatives of the Montreal-Trudeau Airport to appear before the committee to explain their situation. Since this is an issue that concerns both the opposition and the government, I am convinced that my colleagues will support my motion so that we can undertake a serious study with a well-defined framework, and with all of the rigour we need for an issue as crucial as aviation safety.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
