Bill C-7: An Act to Amend the Aeronautics Act

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 7:14 am

What the ?

Tory amendment 'guts' air safety
Transport minister moves to reverse changes
By Fred Vallance-Jones
The Hamilton Spectator
(Jun 19, 2007)

The federal minister of transport has made a bid to sweep aside changes to his airline bill intended to ensure continued safety in the skies.

The changes were made by MPs on the House of Commons transport committee, and would have set ground rules for regulation of so-called safety management systems at airlines. "Continuous monitoring" would be required of the safety levels achieved, and measures would have to be taken to correct problems, so as to achieve "the highest level of safety."

MPs made the changes after hearing a parade of witnesses earlier in 2007 warning that with the move to safety management systems, or SMS, Ottawa was dismantling its own oversight of carriers and leaving safety up to them. The government has always denied that, saying SMS is an added layer of safety.

There was surprise yesterday at Lawrence Cannon's move to reverse some of the amendments the committee made.

"I think it is very troubling that the government has tabled a motion that has gutted the very critical amendments to Bill C-6, approved by the committee after four months of hearings," said retired Alberta justice Virgil Moshansky.

Moshansky, who presided over the landmark inquiry into the 1989 Air Ontario crash, was one of those who spoke out about the implications of SMS.

After an investigative series on airline safety by The Spectator, Toronto Star and Record of Waterloo Region gave wide publicity to the government's plans for SMS, many groups appeared before the commons Transport Committee to warn Canada could be heading for an aviation catastrophe.

In order for Cannon to succeed in removing the safety amendments, at least one of the three opposition parties must reverse itself and support him. NDP Transport critic Peter Julian is scratching his head as to why the government has made the move now.

"The government realized there were some changes that actually would increase the level of safety and for some unknown reason they want to take those amendments out."

Kirsten Goodnough, a spokesperson for Transport Canada, said the clause being removed is redundant as its content is addressed elsewhere in the bill.

"Safety continues to be our top priority," she said.

It's not clear whether Cannon's motion will come up for debate before the house's summer recess, scheduled to begin Friday.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 7:57 am

"I think it is very troubling that the government has tabled a motion that has gutted the very critical amendments to Bill C-6, approved by the committee after four months of hearings," said retired Alberta justice Virgil Moshansky.

"The government realized there were some changes that actually would increase the level of safety and for some unknown reason they want to take those amendments out."

Kirsten Goodnough, a spokesperson for Transport Canada, said the clause being removed is redundant as its content is addressed elsewhere in the bill.

So who do we trust here?

CD · Post by CD » Tue Jun 19, 2007 1:23 pm

Widow wrote:What the ?

Tory amendment 'guts' air safety
Transport minister moves to reverse changes...

Any indication yet on which changes the minister is proposing to change/not adopt?

snaproll20 · Post by **snaproll20** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 2:38 pm

cpl_atc

Thanks, you just said very succinctly when many of us having been trying to say all along. Trying to get bad dudes to change their ways by making them self-responsible is so dumb it defies belief.

I sure hope none of the opposition MPs will allow Lawrence Cannon to reverse his stance (again). This lunatic asylum we live in gets further out of control every day.

Thank the stars I am retired. Now if only I could get my name on a No-fly list.................

plhought · Post by **plhought** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 2:42 pm

This doesnt tell you what amendments he's taking out, but it does give a rundown:

http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePu ... eId=210950

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:44 pm

If we expanded the SMS concept even further, we could get the Hell's Angels and other 'organized' groups to adopt SMS and we could fire all the now-useless police. Or put them back in speed traps where they belong!

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:30 pm

I've been unable to find anything to indicate what motion has been tabled to reverse amendments to the amendments. My guess is, he doesn't like the changes to clause four:

Clause 4 Article 4
That Bill C-6, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 1 and 2 on page 4 with the following: Que le projet de loi C-6, à l'article 4, soit modifié par substitution, aux lignes 1 et 2, page 4, de ce qui suit :

“4. (1) The portion of section 4.2 of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

4.2 (1) The Minister is responsible for the development and regulation of aeronautics and the supervision of all matters connected with aeronautics, and shall require that aeronautical activities be performed at all times in a manner that meets the highest safety and security standards. In the discharge of those responsibilities and that duty, the Minister may”

That Bill C-6, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 5 the following: Que le projet de loi C-6, à l'article 4, soit modifié par adjonction, après la ligne 17, page 5, de ce qui suit :

“(1.1) The Minister shall maintain a program for the oversight and surveillance of aviation safety in order to achieve the highest level of safety established by the Minister

CD · Post by CD » Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:11 am

Here are a couple of articles from the Hamilton paper today... It's not clear how, or if, they relate to yesterdays article. I get the impression that the paper is just reporting bits and pieces at a time to make the story last longer.

Amended bill puts safety onus on airlines

THE HAMILTON SPECTATOR
Fred Vallance-Jones
06/20/2007

Amendments to the Aeronautics Act in the final stages of debate in Ottawa would give airlines broad immunity from sanctions and clamp unprecedented secrecy on safety information. But the bill contains several new provisions, added by the commons transport committee, designed to maintain Transport Canada's oversight role.

Central to Bill C-6 is Transport Canada's vision for "safety management systems," which would transfer much of the onus for maintaining safety to the airlines.

Transport has maintained that SMS, as it is known for short, adds new protections to complement Ottawa's existing inspection and oversight responsibilities. But critics, including Transport Canada's own pilot inspectors, have warned Ottawa is engaging in a wholesale abandonment of its traditional role in favour of a kind of self-regulation. A poll of federal aviation inspectors found nearly three quarters of inspectors believe a major airline accident is looming because of increasingly lax safety oversight.

Other critics point to rising accidents in the railway industry, which has had a form of SMS for years, as proof it doesn't and won't work.

"All of the elements are here for us to see the same kind of increases in accidents that we saw with railways" said Peter Julian, NDP transport critic.

Among the key elements in Bill C-6 are measures that will exempt airlines that have safety management systems from regulatory sanction if they violate federal safety rules and the violations are reported through the SMS process.

The legislation also contains a sweeping ban on the release of safety information obtained by Ottawa from airlines and airline employees under the SMS regime. Only in certain circumstances could information be released, and citizens would have no right to request it under the Access to Information Act.

"This is an incredible deal that has been struck with the airlines that Transport Canada is saying, 'We cannot oversee you anymore, so we're going to trust you to do it yourself, and the quid pro quo is we are not going to enforce against you, but more importantly, we're going to put a secrecy cone over the both of us,'" said Richard Balnis, senior research officer with the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which represents 8,500 flight attendants at six airlines.

After an investigation of airline safety by The Spectator, Toronto Star and The Record of Waterloo Region gave publicity to the government's plans for SMS, many groups appeared before the Commons transport committee to warn Canada could be heading for an aviation catastrophe. The newspapers' investigation found more than 80,000 passengers were put at risk over a five- year period from 2001 to 2005 when planes came dangerously close to each other in Canadian skies. It also found rising numbers of mechanical defects and lax safety regulations.

The committee pushed through a number of amendments. The NDP did not support the bill as amended. The Bloc Quebecois and Liberals did. Many of the core provisions were untouched.

Joe Volpe, Liberal transport critic, said the amended bill now strikes the right balance between the need to encourage reporting of safety problems, and the public's right to know. The amendments ensure strong oversight by Transport Canada will continue, he said. The bill was debated for several hours in the House of Commons yesterday. Observers say the bill may not make it through the House before summer recess begins this week.

fvallance-jones@thespec.com

905-526-2499

Bill's whistleblower protection missing appeal process for workers

THE HAMILTON SPECTATOR
Fred Vallance-Jones
06/20/2007

Canadian airline workers are poised to get limited whistleblower protection if they go public with concerns about safety violations.

But critics say the protection is hollow, because workers won't have any means to get their jobs back if they are fired or suspended anyway for speaking out.

The protection was added to Ottawa's airline safety bill in the last stages of examination by the House of Commons transport committee.

It would prohibit airlines and other operators from taking punitive action against an employee merely because they reported a safety concern, so long as they had first reported the concern through the airline's internal safety management system. The operator would be subject to a fine of up to $1 million, the proposed new maximum penalty for corporate contraventions of the Aeronautics Act.

The NDP transport critic, Peter Julian, said the idea is a good one in principle.

But he says the bill doesn't back up the prohibition with any process through which a worker could gain redress against an employer that fired him anyway. He says by the time Transport Canada took action against the employer, the worker could have been without a job for a year or more, possibly having lost their home.

The president of local 2002 of the Canadian Auto Workers, which represents 10,000 airline workers, agrees the protection as written is weak.

Leslie **** said whistleblower protection is important because public safety is at stake if airline safety problems aren't fixed, but without a way for a worker to get recourse, "I would say that would hugely water down the potential protection."

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 7:56 am

Here are part of Peter Julian's initial remarks to the House regarding the changes to the amendments:

Let us see what the Conservatives are trying to strike from the record. I am sure Canadians who are watching the parliamentary deliberations today will be very interested in learning what the Conservatives want to take out of Bill C-6. It is already a bad bill for a number of reasons. It is a bad bill because it gives a get out of jail free card to companies that violate with impunity safety in maintenance and safety generally. An airline company that does that, as long as it follows some sort of internal process, will get a get out of jail free card. Airline companies can be irresponsible. They can even cost lives. However, if they have set up some sort of internal mechanism and they say that they are following the dictates of that internal mechanism, they get a get out of jail free card. The CEOs can be as irresponsible as they want and the government is giving them a get out of jail free card.

Also, the government is not providing any sort of whistleblower protection in any real form. We were able to get some amendments in committee but it does not in any way protect a whistleblower who has raised real concerns about company irresponsibility.

In addition to all that, the Conservative government is moving forward and rather than having just two exemptions to the Access to Information Act, we will now be looking at nine areas that are cut off forever from access to information. The Canadian public will never find out what companies are being irresponsible and what companies are putting Canadians' loved ones in danger.

These government amendments that are coming forward today take out the safety management systems that any internal programs that companies set up have to have a responsible executive. The government is taking that out. There will not be a responsible executive for whatever purported safety mechanism that is set up.

The government wants to remove the appointment of an executive who has to be responsible for operations and activities authorized under a certificate issued pursuant to a regulation made under the act and accountable for the extent to which the requirements of the applicable safety management systems have been met. The government wants to take away the requirement of putting in place remedial action required to maintain the highest level of safety.

Canadians are finding out that the government presented a bad bill. The government wants to repeat the same errors we have seen occur with our railway system, the derailments, environmental devastation and death. Seeing what the Liberals did there, the Conservatives have decided to do the same thing with the airline industry. They are taking out the reference to the implementation of remedial action required to maintain the highest level of safety.

If we could have a clear picture from Conservative members, if they walked around with a sign on their foreheads, it would say “We want to make sure that we don't maintain the highest level of safety”. That is what the Conservative members are attempting to do with this bill. By bringing forward these amendments, they are gutting a section that requires a responsible executive of the company, to which they are turning over safety management, to put in place remedial action required to maintain the highest level of safety. The Conservatives are saying they do not want the highest level of safety maintained.

What else are the Conservatives taking out? They are taking out responsibility for continuous monitoring and regular assessment of the level of safety achieved. They are taking that out. What could be a clearer notice of intent of where the Conservatives want to go with this?

For those Canadians, quite rightfully, particularly in British Columbia, who are concerned about what they have seen in the railway system, now the Conservatives are doing the same thing with the airline system. They are taking out references to continuous monitoring and taking out the requirement for remedial action to maintain the highest level of safety.

Finally, the government amendment is also taking out the involvement of employees in the development, implementation and ongoing operation of the applicable safety management system. The transport committee heard testimony which was conclusive, clear and constant that for any safety management system to work, the employees have to be involved.

Reference to a responsible executive is being taken out. Implementation of a remedial action required to maintain the highest level of safety is being taken out. Continuous monitoring and regular assessment of the level of safety achieved is being taken out. The involvement of employees and their bargaining agents in the development, implementation and ongoing operation of the applicable safety management system is being taken out. Let us gut whatever minor protection existed in the bill. Let us just go to the wild, wild west of air safety.

We heard testimony from witnesses saying that this was exactly the wrong way to go. The Conservatives are saying, “No, that is fine. We do not care about Canadians' safety. We do not care about ensuring that there are high standards. We do not care about all of that”. What the Conservatives want to do is just get out of the safety business, just turn it over to the companies and in addition, if they break the law, there will be not be any punishment or consequences. As long as a company is incorporated, it would seem to be able to do anything in Conservative land. For individuals, the full breadth of the law will be brought down on their heads, but as long as a company is incorporated and has wealthy corporate lawyers protecting it, it can do anything it wants in this new, strange, bizarre world that the Conservatives seem to want to bring forward.

The Conservative amendment is absolutely outrageous. It is gutting what components might have existed in Bill C-6 which is already a pretty reckless and irresponsible piece of legislation. Now the Conservatives have brought forward an amendment to gut what provisions may have existed to actually require companies to maintain a high level of safety, to take remedial action when there were problems, to ensure that employees were involved, employees who are at the front line.

If anything was revealed by that terrific series on air safety done by The Hamilton Spectator journalists who basically went in and saw the various levels of safety violations that occur even now with Transport Canada oversight within the Canadian aviation system, it was the importance of having employees involved. Now we have a so-called safety system, we call it self-serve safety, where corporate CEOs can take whatever they want and leave whatever they want behind.

By gutting these amendments that were put in place by the transport committee, essentially to assure at least some measure of safety, what the government is doing is revealing its agenda, and that agenda is not to protect the loved ones of Canadians. The agenda is not to increase the confidence that Canadians may have in the airline system after what we saw happening to the railway system. No, the agenda seems to be purely ideological: to simply gut those safety systems and hand them over to the companies and see if it all works out.

We oppose that. We oppose this amendment. We had hoped to have discussion on the NDP amendment separately from these irresponsible government amendments.

Here is the link to yesterdays debate.

Hansard 174

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:12 pm

They are voting on the whether to pass the Bill now. I'm betting it goes through since summer holidays are dependant upon it ...

Early Commons closing deal hits a snag
DANIEL LEBLANC

Globe and Mail Update

June 20, 2007 at 4:10 PM EDT

OTTAWA — A deal to end the spring sitting of the House of Commons Wednesday afternoon now seems to be unravelling.

The four parties in the House had agreed earlier Wednesday to go home in that evening, two days ahead of schedule.

However, party officials said there is no longer agreement on the matter, although it is unclear who decided to keep the House session going.

The NDP blamed the Liberals, while Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan refused to point fingers.

“I will not negotiate in public,” he said.

Earlier Wednesday Bloc Québécois House Leader Pierre Paquette said the session “could end this afternoon” if other parties agree.

At that time the NDP, which some people felt could block the deal, was on board.

We are aiming at 5:30 this afternoon,” an NDP official said, while adding that shenanigans from other parties could scuttle the agreement.

The deal was expected to include the passage later Wednesday of Bill C-6, dealing with aeronautic safety.

Also, the deal called on the House of Commons to be called back if the Liberal-dominated Senate blocked the passage of the budget implementation act.

theglobeandmail

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:27 pm

Sounds like we're hooped - those guys want to go home and will likely pass anything to get away from Ottawa for the summer. A Guinness says they'll pass it as is...

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:43 pm

Only the NDP continued trying to hold off. Bill C-6 has gone through.

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:25 pm

The inmates are running the asylum. What a waste of time having hearings and commissions when they just do what they want anyway. I hate to see it but TC has won.

I'm really sorry to see all your efforts wasted, Widow.

CD · Post by CD » Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:28 pm

Do you happen to know what version of C-6 passed

I guess it will be on the Parliament website in the next few days but I'm still curious to know what portions of the amendment were going to be amended (beyond the get-out-of-jail-free card that Peter was on about...) I happen to like Peter but sometimes, I think the politician in him gets a wee bit carried away.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:30 pm

I hate to see it but TC has won.

Was there ever any doubt.

The chance now of any operators going against TC has faded to zero.

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 5:30 pm

JEEBUS Widow,

You're a quoting MACHINE!

The HANSARD?!?!?!!?

Shit, I'm a political junkie, and I've never read it.

Though what I've skimmed is bad news..... You da (wo)MAN!

-istp

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:20 pm

These were the motions that were debated (motions 1,3 & 13 were not selected by the Chair as they could have been presented in committee):

Motion No. 2 (CPC):

That Bill C-6, in Clause 8, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 25 on page 8.

Motion No. 4 (NDP):

That Bill C-6 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 5 (NDP):

That Bill C-6, in Clause 12, be amended by deleting line 35 on page 11 to line 5 on page 16.

Motions No. 6 & 7 are French language discrepancies.

Motion No. 8 (CPC):

That Bill C-6, in Clause 12, be amended
(a) by replacing line 26 on page 21 with the following:
“(5) Information reported by an employee under the program”
(b) by replacing line 28 on page 21 with the following:
“used against the employee to take any reprisals,”

Motion No. 9, 10, 11, 12 (NDP) are deleting Clauses 35, 36, 43 & 44

Motion No. 14 (NDP):

That Bill C-6, in Clause 49, be amended by deleting lines 14 to 16 on page 78.

Motion No. 15 (NDP):

That Bill C-6, in Clause 49, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 78 with the following:
“(2) Sections 5.31 to 5.393 of the Aeronautics Act, as enacted by section 12 of this Act, shall not have”

Motion No. 16 (CPC):

That Bill C-6, in Clause 49, be amended by replacing lines 14 and 15 on page 78 with the following:
“(2) Despite subsection (1), sections 5.31 to 5.38 of the Aeronautics Act, as enacted by section 12 of this Act, come into force three years after the day on which this Act receives”

The NDP, the BQ and the Libs all sounded as if they were rejecting Motion No. 2 which referenced the deletion of lines 1 - 25 of Clause 8:

8. (1) The portion of section 4.9 of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Aeronautics regulations

4.9 The Governor in Council may make any regulation respecting aeronautics that prescribes anything that by this Part is to be prescribed or that is generally for the carrying out of the purposes and provisions of this Part, including regulations respecting

(1.1) Section 4.9 of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (c):
(c.1) safety management systems and programs that provide for
(i) the appointment of an executive
(A) responsible for operations and activities authorized under a certificate issued pursuant to a regulation made under this Act, and
(B) accountable for the extent to which the requirements of the applicable safety management system or program have been met,
(ii) the implementation, as a result of any risk management analysis, of the remedial action required to maintain the highest level of safety,
(iii) continuous monitoring and regular assessment of the level of safety achieved, and
(iv) the involvement of employees and their bargaining agents in the development, implementation and ongoing operation of the applicable safety management system or program;

I'll be reading Hansard again tomorrow.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:35 pm

Ok, you can all relax a minute! The vote has been put on hold until the fall. Nobody liked the government last minute changes and the rush, rush rush - there was just enough support to stay the vote until the fall.

So c'mon - we need to get cracking because there is only a couple of months to go before it rears it's ugly head again. We need to increase public support to put pressure on the various parties - a couple who are really starting to ask all the right questions.

The individual MPs need support from their parties before they can really roll up their sleeves, and they are only going to get that support if the public is pressuring for it.

So speak out!

Cheers,
Snoopy

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:39 pm

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:42 pm

I know!!!!!! Isn't it great???!!! Somebody just really made my day!

Bill C-7: An Act to Amend the Aeronautics Act

Bill C-7: An Act to Amend the Aeronautics Act

Re: Transport minister moves to reverse changes to Bill C-6