Transport Committee on May 18th, 2017

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I thought that, if it had been convenient to have them come today when we are all here, that would have been fine. I don't have any reason to believe they're going to offer any different testimony from what we heard from the Canadian Airports Council.

We have a lot of things we want to go through. I feel we've been adding on, and I feel this could drag on, so my personal preference would be to say that we've invited them and, if they can't make it, I have some sympathies but I don't believe it's going to offer new and helpful evidence that informs our study, personally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Go ahead, Ms. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

I have two points, Madam Chair.

First, the motion to invite these witnesses was made by a member of the Conservative Party as well as a member of the Liberal Party. Two motions were moved. There was an informal agreement. If these informal agreements don't stand, we will always have to have formal motions on the table. If the spirit of an informal agreement is not going to be upheld, that's fine and we will take that into consideration as we move forward with committee business and studies.

The second point is I don't believe that the parliamentary secretary has a vote at this table, so it is totally inappropriate for her to say that we cannot add another meeting or day.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Are there any further comments?

Go ahead, Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

It's just a question, Madam Chair.

The agreement—I don't think it was a motion, but more of an agreement—by the two parties, or possibly by the three, and I don't want to speak for Mr. Aubin, was it not to have the witnesses here today? That is my first question. My second question is whether they refused.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

They were unavailable to come today.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

They were unavailable.

Third, just to comment, quite frankly, I find it hard to believe that they couldn't find somebody within their organization to come to this meeting. If we offer them the opportunity again, are they going to come or are they going to give us the same answer?

It's not a question for you, Mr. Berthold. It's a question for the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

The reason they were not able to come today is that they were out of the country.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

The whole organization, the entire group was out of the country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

They did not want to send just anyone, so they have asked, through Mr. Berthold, to have the opportunity to come back.

The question we have on the floor is to have one hour more dedicated to the aviation study so that we can allow the folks from Montreal to come to speak to the committee. I think it's a reasonable thing to ask. It's one hour more that we're asking and in the interests of our trying to get along together, what's the problem with asking for another hour?

I'm not supposed to talk, so I'm sorry; my apologies.

Let's just move on with it. We have a request from Mr. Berthold to add an extra hour onto our aviation study to allow the folks from the Montreal airport to come.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

If we have another witness to hear, what happens to the drafting instructions?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

They will just have to wait until we've completed the study.

We don't have a deadline on the study. We're delaying it an extra hour, so the question is whether we delay it for an extra hour in order to call another meeting.

All those in favour of having one more hour on aviation study?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Good. It carries. Thank you.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We'll accommodate that.

Mr. Berthold, you have the floor.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Ferguson, given that there are still a lot of questions in the air, so to speak, since the aviation safety study started, in particular concerning pilot training and fatigue, do you think it would be useful for your office to do a little more in-depth study? That would mean updating the 2012 study and seeing whether Transport Canada has acted on the various recommendations in it.

At present, the aviation industry is experiencing extremely rapid growth. I believe it is one of the fastest growing industries. We can see this from the investments being made in airports in big cities.

I note in your report that the situation when it comes to investments is not the same in the rural communities in the north, and that those communities need investments.

Do you think it would be useful for your office to do a more in-depth analysis of the state of aviation safety and inspection processes in this important industry in Canada?

[Michael Ferguson]

That is a very broad subject that involves a lot of aspects. Certainly, it would be useful to consider doing follow-up on what we did in the past. I think that is a reasonable request.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Ferguson, how does the process normally work? I am a little new in Parliament and I am asking the question in all sincerity. When you do an analysis like the one in 2012, what process do you follow for checking whether the recommendations have been followed? I am talking about this case, but it might apply to another one also.

In the department's responses, it says that Transport Canada will continue to work with the territories and provinces, but continuing to do something can mean continuing to do what was being done before.

How does it work, in general, in your office?

[Michael Ferguson]

Each time we present an audit, we make recommendations, and then we receive responses from the department. The department always prepares an action plan that sets out the steps to be followed to solve the problems.

From time to time, we may also do a follow-up a few years later: another audit on the same subject. In particular, the objective is to give the department time to resolve the situation.

We often observe that there are deficiencies in how the departments react to our recommendations. We do not often find that improvements have solved all the problems, but we do fairly often follow up on the same subject, although that is not the case for every audit.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Do you think it would be useful, at this time, to do a follow-up of the 2012 study, in view of people's concerns about aviation safety and of the growth in this sector of the industry? Our committee has heard a lot of testimony that has raised concerns.

[Michael Ferguson]

In our audit planning, we can consider the possibility of doing a follow-up on this subject, certainly.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold.

Go ahead, Mr. Iacono.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Chair, I'll be sharing my time with Sean Fraser.

Mr. Ferguson, you think that Transport Canada spends too much time solving certain safety problems. Do you think the department can implement an expedited process? Does that kind of process exist? Is it effective elsewhere — for example, in another department?