Transport Committee on Feb. 16th, 2021

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to let you know that I can't hear the speakers very well. I just got a message from the IT service desk flagging an issue with the Internet connection in the Wellington Building, so I hope you'll be able to hear me.

Welcome to the witnesses.

My first question is for Mr. Turnbull.

Could the technology in new airplanes become so complex as to surpass regulators' ability to evaluate it? If so, what can we do to keep that from happening?

[David Turnbull]

Thank you for the question.

It's a very good question, but it's not a new question. We've been dealing with this problem for a number of years. Going back 10 to 12 years ago, aircraft manufacturers started to produce aircraft with systems that were much more highly integrated. In other words, instead of having isolated systems doing their own functions, they are all talking to each other through central computers. That's one example of technological advancement. That, in itself, resulted in a significant initiative to reinvent the way we analyze aircraft system failures from what we call a “design assurance” perspective.

Those processes or methodologies have been used in recent certifications and leave me quite confident that new technologies are indeed causing the way that we analyze aircraft designs to evolve to keep up with that. I'm not concerned that technology will get away from us. There is no question, however, that anything new coming our way is cause for closer investigation and indeed learning on our part, in some cases by looking at it from the regulatory perspective. However, I remain confident that we are prepared to meet that challenge.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

My second question is for Mr. Robinson.

Going forward, what is stopping a company like Boeing from doing what it did with the 737 MAX and hiding issues from regulators? What is stopping Boeing from again deploying technology that pilots aren't familiar with?

[Nicholas Robinson]

There are two components to that question I'd like to address: one, how Canada would prevent that; and two, how our certification partners, as well, have learned to prevent that.

First I'll speak to the Canadian perspective. I can say without doubt that the approach we take with our Canadian manufactures is a much more integrated one. Our experts, the experts in the national aircraft certification group, are quite significantly involved in the certification, review and analysis, even in those components that we may delegate to our manufacturers. It is a mutually respective process, which prevents that sort of instance we saw with Boeing where information was withheld from a certification partner. From a Canadian perspective, we don't believe that sort of situation or environment would occur, given the work that we have directly with our manufacturers.

From an international perspective and the instance that we saw with Boeing, we believe that the reviews and inquiries that have been undertaken within the U.S., and the recommendations that have been put out, which the FAA has committed to implementing, will prevent a similar problem from occurring in the United States again, particularly with regard to Boeing.

A secondary set of assurances goes back to my colleague Dave's comments on what we've learned around how much we engage and the areas that we engage on in our validation process. Our validation process will be much more thorough in a number of different areas where we see there may be a chance or an opportunity that the certifying authority might not have the full information for what's being looked at.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

My next question is for Mr. Robinson.

Once we've completed our study, what should inform the committee's recommendations? What should we keep in mind, do you think?

What policy or regulatory changes would be useful?

[Nicholas Robinson]

I'll go back again to a comment, and probably a recognition, which I would ask the committee for consideration of. While among certification authorities across the world—particularly EASA, ANAC, us and the FAA—we do work together and collaborate in the certification and validation of aeronautical products, there's also a clear recognition that our systems differ in many ways.

I spoke to that in the previous question. Our engagement with our manufacturers and the way we delegate reviews are different from what the FAA has learned could be problematic, was problematic, in the case of the Boeing 737 MAX.

I would ask that the committee consider the differences between our own system and that of the FAA. I'd also refer you to the testimony you heard from our own Canadian manufacturers who are engaged in our certification systems and their approaches. I would consider that testimony as being very important, because that is a true testimony of how Canada and the national aircraft certification group work with the manufacturers to certify globally recognized, safe aeronautical products.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

Thank you, Mr. El-Khoury.

We're now going to move on to the Bloc Québécois, with Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have six minutes.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hope I'll have a chance to ask my questions about the Boeing 737 MAX. It's an issue I care about deeply.

I care deeply about another issue I'd like to raise today. On Friday, everyone should have received my notice of motion. It reads as follows:

That the Committee invite the Minister of Transport to appear for one hour on the approval of the sale of Air Transat and that this meeting take place as soon as possible, but no later than February 25, 2021. That the Committee invite for the second hour of this meeting the Competition Bureau to testify on the same subject.

I am putting forward this motion because, on Thursday, as everyone knows, the transport minister approved the sale of Air Transat to Air Canada, despite the fact that the competition bureau had advised against it. The bureau's report dates back to March, yes, but the opinion still stands.

The government imposed conditions on Air Canada to allow the sale to go through, but the bureau found them inadequate. What's more, another offer was on the table, from businessman Pierre Karl Péladeau, an offer that would have kept competition intact.

In light of all that, the minister should explain why he approved the sale when the competition bureau said that it was a bad idea and that the measures were not satisfactory, not to mention the fact that Mr. Péladeau's offer was also on the table.

Hearing the minister's explanation as well as the competition bureau's perspective would be very insightful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

We have a motion. I apologize to the witnesses, but we're going to have to pivot over to the motion as presented by Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

With that, I will open it up for questions or comments. I have one hand up.

Mr. El-Khoury, the floor is yours.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have something to propose to the honourable member, Mr. Barsalou-Duval. We've discussed this, so I want to reiterate that, if he is willing to withdraw his motion, I am prepared to give him my speaking time when the Minister of Transport appears at our next meeting.

We still haven't finished our COVID-19 report, and I'm sure the Minister of Transport has a packed schedule. I think my proposal would give Mr. Barsalou-Duval enough time—more than 10 or 12 minutes—to put all of his questions to the minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. El-Khoury.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, do you have a response to that?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

I'd like to thank Mr. El-Khoury for his generous offer. It's very kind of him.

Of course, you'll appreciate that my preference is to have the minister appear before the committee to thoroughly address the matter. We already have two topics to discuss with him at our next meeting, his mandate letter and the whole issue of border measures and testing. I am nevertheless pragmatic, so if the committee is amenable, we can replace the transport minister with Pierre Karl Péladeau, the person who put in the competing bid. That way, the committee could examine the issue without making any demands on the minister's time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Mr. El-Khoury, do you have any further comments?

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

If we decided to invite Mr. Péladeau, we would have to invite the other bidders as well. I can't quite see how having Mr. Péladeau appear as a witness would help as far as the Government of Canada is concerned, since the minister would be answering Mr. Barsalou-Duval's questions directly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. El-Khoury.

I'm going to go to Mr. Sidhu and then back over to Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to my colleague for bringing up those little suggestions.

I come from a business background. I don't think this committee should be getting involved in business disputes between the many different airlines and businessmen. I think that, with respect to our witnesses, we need to hear them out. We don't have any studies completed, and I really want to get to the study and the report. That's very important for many people in a sector that's been heavily impacted by COVID. I get calls every day at my constituency office in terms of airlines and people who work in the airline industry or the transport industry, so I think it's important that we get to a report. There are many other things that will come up.

If our Conservative colleagues can weigh in here, I'd like to hear what they have to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Sidhu.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To Mr. Sidhu's comment about the relevance of inviting Mr. Péladeau, I would say that, since the minister refused to meet—

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, can you hold off for a second, please? We're not getting the translation in English. We're getting it in French.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, please continue.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

I was talking about the relevance of inviting Mr. Péladeau. If committee members have other witnesses they would like to hear from on the subject, that's fine with me. Either way, I think it's important for the committee to give Mr. Péladeau the opportunity to be heard since he never had a chance to meet with the Minister of Transport before he approved the deal, which I find quite surprising.

I see that what I'm proposing does not have the government members' support, so we should proceed with the vote and get back to today's study.

The fact of the matter is that this is an important issue, much more than a deal negotiated between two companies. As I see it, the government's decision was politically motivated. It approved a quasi-monopoly when another offer was on the table. It seems to me that the individual behind that offer deserves to be heard by the committee. I have questions about the minister's reasons. The minister is supposed to appear Thursday, so further to Mr. El-Khoury's proposal, we could replace the minister with Mr. Péladeau, who would then have an opportunity to be heard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval. Yes, we will proceed to a vote once everyone has had a chance to speak to the motion.

Mr. Bachrach, the floor is yours.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Committee members will have read the letter that my colleagues and I submitted for their consideration. We have strong concerns about the way in which the minister made his decision on the Air Transat sale, especially in light of what we've heard from the competition commissioner, so we very much support the idea of inviting the minister to appear before our committee to answer our questions.

As for the proposal to add Mr. Péladeau, we have no opposition to that. I would certainly be willing to entertain that idea. However, I believe that inviting the minister should be our first priority. I certainly believe, given the impact that the sale likely has on Canadian consumers, on the flying public, that this issue is of urgent importance and I support Mr. Barsalou-Duval's motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

We're now going to go to Ms. Jaczek.

Ms. Jaczek, the floor is yours.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I must be missing something. The minister is actually coming on Thursday, as I understand it. I would have thought that would be a perfect opportunity for Monsieur Barsalou-Duval to pose his questions to the minister, so I'm a little puzzled about the need for this motion with a date that is very specific because the minister is already attending. As I understand it, Monsieur El-Khoury is perfectly fine giving up his time for Monsieur Barsalou-Duval to spend additional time questioning the minister on his decision in relation to something that is actually a fait accompli at this point.

I personally just don't quite understand why we need this motion, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Ms. Jaczek.

Now we'll go to Mrs. Kusie.