Higher maximum fines, and an confidential reporting system.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/cham ... ver-E.html
http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/cham ... OB-1518075
"A key amendment would be to establish voluntary non-punitive reporting programs. Some people ask, “How can you have voluntary non-punitive reporting programs?” In this case, we have to, and I will go into this in more detail.
This program would actually allow individuals and operators to file a report that would be confidential. It would be done on a voluntary basis in relation to certain regulatory violations. The aviation community wants to work with us to identify these safety risks and they want options for how to address them.
We want results for Canadians. We do not just want rules. We want what is best for Canadians, not just more bureaucracy.
We would use this data provided by operators to make safety improvements. They would provide the information on a non-disclosure basis and we would take that information, disseminate it and implement programs and policies that are going to be good for Canadians. The data, without identifying any specific information from stakeholders, would be used to share with others internationally and nationally to ensure the safety of Canadians."
"Quite frankly, current penalties are insufficient. The last time any amendments were made in relation to the penalties themselves was in 1984. Now in 1984 dollars, in some cases that is not even sufficient given what has happened today. The maximum penalties before this were $5,000 for individuals and actually only $25,000 for corporations. Quite frankly, sometimes corporations would consider the penalties to be a cost of doing business, which of course in turn would infringe upon Canadians' right to privacy in some cases, for noise and other things like that, and also it would not keep Canadians to a minimum standard of safety. As a government, we are going to do that.
Whether the penalty results from an administrative or a summary conviction penalty, Bill C-6 would raise both maximums and would allow a more severe penalty so industry would know that if it violated the act, it would pay price. It would be deterred from doing anything illegal or against the act.
For administrative proceedings, for instance, we will increase the maximum from $5,000 to $50,000 for individuals, 10 times the amount that was in the act under the previous government. For corporations, we will change that to $250,000, 10 times more than what was provided under the previous government.
They could also be applied for contraventions with serious actual or potential impacts for flight safety, and that is the most important issue here. The act looks at fatigue management for controllers and mechanics. We cannot have these people not operating as number one on the basis of safety.
In summary conviction offences and proceedings, for instance, the proposed amendments will take it up to $100,000 for individuals and $1 million for corporations. They are not going to be taking the legislation for granted anymore and they are not going to take it as a cost of doing business. They will stop doing it. This behaviour will change.
The new maximum penalty levels could be assessed for serious, wilful contraventions of the act. We are not trying to penalize those people who have the intention of doing right and accidentally do something that could be a violation of the act. We are going to catch those people, especially for the maximum amount of penalty, who are doing this wilfully and who must be stopped."
Aeronautics act getting amended.
Moderators: Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, I WAS Birddog
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Great:
Quote:
"The new maximum penalty levels could be assessed for serious, wilful contraventions of the act. We are not trying to penalize those people who have the intention of doing right and accidentally do something that could be a violation of the act. We are going to catch those people, especially for the maximum amount of penalty, who are doing this wilfully and who must be stopped."
This is just wonderful so now if you are the target of one of TCCA's self proclaimed law enforcers that decides to do a number on you you can be assessed ten times the monetary fine.
Just wonderful.
When are they going to deal with those within their own system who willfully bend and or break the rules because they know they are protected and unacountable?
I would suggest that before the Hon. John Baird gives a bigger hammer to TCCA he cleans out the few in TCCA who are untrustworthy and dishonest and missuse the office they hold.
Cat
Quote:
"The new maximum penalty levels could be assessed for serious, wilful contraventions of the act. We are not trying to penalize those people who have the intention of doing right and accidentally do something that could be a violation of the act. We are going to catch those people, especially for the maximum amount of penalty, who are doing this wilfully and who must be stopped."
This is just wonderful so now if you are the target of one of TCCA's self proclaimed law enforcers that decides to do a number on you you can be assessed ten times the monetary fine.
Just wonderful.
When are they going to deal with those within their own system who willfully bend and or break the rules because they know they are protected and unacountable?
I would suggest that before the Hon. John Baird gives a bigger hammer to TCCA he cleans out the few in TCCA who are untrustworthy and dishonest and missuse the office they hold.
Cat
Last edited by Cat Driver on Sat May 06, 2006 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
Mitch Cronin
- Rank 8
- Posts: 914
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:15 am
- Location: Right beside my dog again...
.,
In spite of all it's flaws, Transport Canada is providing a necessary role... Seems to me, when it comes to a move like this, that's obviously designed to improve flight safety, someone who really gave a flying fahootek about flight safety might just see it as a positive step...
Not you eh? You choose to see the negative from your own spin. You really think a single offside "self proclaimed law enforcer" wouldn't have to have a legitimate and well documented case in order for TC to impose a huge fine?
In spite of all it's flaws, Transport Canada is providing a necessary role... Seems to me, when it comes to a move like this, that's obviously designed to improve flight safety, someone who really gave a flying fahootek about flight safety might just see it as a positive step...
Not you eh? You choose to see the negative from your own spin. You really think a single offside "self proclaimed law enforcer" wouldn't have to have a legitimate and well documented case in order for TC to impose a huge fine?
The proposals are not new and have been out and available for consultation for at least the last 6 years...
Proposals to Amend the Aeronautics Act (as revised in response to consultation comments - 11 May 2001)
Aeronautics Act Amendments
Proposals to Amend the Aeronautics Act (as revised in response to consultation comments - 11 May 2001)
Aeronautics Act Amendments
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Mitch, you sure are myopic when it comes to reality: this latest from you shows how little you understand how TCCA really works. ( unless of course you are TCCA and thus a shill. )
Quote:
" Not you eh? You choose to see the negative from your own spin. You really think a single offside "self proclaimed law enforcer" wouldn't have to have a legitimate and well documented case in order for TC to impose a huge fine? "
You are correct, not me.
Before I would side with any enforcement from TCCA I would need to see TCCA cleaning out the people that they are presently protecting who deny due process to us their clients.
I would not want street criminals deciding my fate just because they have power, so why would I accept a dishonest untrustworthy TCCA employee to have such power to assess fines?
But seeing as you are so pro TCCA and seem to think that they are so above board and trustworthy lets hope you are their first target.
Cat
Quote:
" Not you eh? You choose to see the negative from your own spin. You really think a single offside "self proclaimed law enforcer" wouldn't have to have a legitimate and well documented case in order for TC to impose a huge fine? "
You are correct, not me.
Before I would side with any enforcement from TCCA I would need to see TCCA cleaning out the people that they are presently protecting who deny due process to us their clients.
I would not want street criminals deciding my fate just because they have power, so why would I accept a dishonest untrustworthy TCCA employee to have such power to assess fines?
But seeing as you are so pro TCCA and seem to think that they are so above board and trustworthy lets hope you are their first target.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Aeronautics act getting amended.
So I guess the asshole will cut the avgas tax, give back the gas subsidies and also reduce the price of gas, I mean, 1984 it was what 20cents, so we should be paying 20 / 10, so we'll be paying 2cent/l?grimey wrote: "Quite frankly, current penalties are insufficient. The last time any amendments were made in relation to the penalties themselves was in 1984. Now in 1984 dollars, in some cases that is not even sufficient given what has happened today.
If penalties go up, taxes and other bs should go down?
ROFL, BS...We are not trying to penalize those people who have the intention of doing right and accidentally do something that could be a violation of the act.
Sheesh... I had to look that word up.Cat Driver wrote:Mitch, you sure are myopic when it comes to reality: this latest from you shows how little you understand how TCCA really works. ( unless of course you are TCCA and thus a shill. )
I happen to know Mitch virtually from a few other forums in this online universe and just wanted to point out that he may be many things, but you cannot count being a shill among them. It is a shame that so many discussions have to turn into an us vs. them bun fight when it is difficult to know who we or they are.
Oh well, carry on...
-
Mitch Cronin
- Rank 8
- Posts: 914
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 9:15 am
- Location: Right beside my dog again...
Well there's where you're missing it .. (Thanks CD, by the way)Cat Driver wrote:But seeing as you are so pro TCCA and seem to think that they are so above board and trustworthy lets hope you are their first target.
Cat
It's not that I'm "so pro TCCA" at all... (nor am I anti-. in spite of how I'm sure it must seem... I just think you're crusty old fart with a serious grudge -probably well earned)
I'm just heavily pro flight safety. You gripe about almost any power TC has, but they HAVE to have the power to thwart would-be rent-a-wreck outfits and convince those that exist to clean up their act.
I acknowledge their flaws, and I'm sorry some decent folks will suffer because of those flaws... But to listen to you, they shouldn't even exist...
Obviously they have to. I share your hope that they clean up their own house, where it needs it, but in the mean time, I'll still be thankful there is an overseer with enough teeth to keep winged trash-heaps and dangerous operators on the ground.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Jeeeeesses Mitch, how many fu.kin times do I have to explain to you that all my fu.kin career I have wanted TC to get more teeth and shut down the operators who blatently ignore the rules and drive down the industry....
...now once more can you please understand that there are just to many in TCCA who seem to think they are above the very laws they are sworn to uphold.
I can and will if given the right opportunity show proof positive that here in this region we have several of TCCA's top management who have destroyed at least four companies by using dishonest and underhanded methods to show that they are all powerful..in my case they were found guilty beyond doubt of unlawful actions for no other reason than to protect several of their own.
And the same people were found guilty of with holding, changing and altering documents in a vendetta against two of their own....they appealed and lost....
Now how could any reasonable thinking member of the aviation community not feel revulshion at the fact that these people are still in positions of power and no actions have been taken against them by their masters in Ottawa?
One of these people is the RDCA in this region...Mitch please think about this. If what I am alledging is untrue they would be on me like fleas on a dog for liable.
They don't come after me because I have the evidence and they know it.
Look do me a favour and phone / e-mail or write a letter to the RDCA in the Pacific Region and ask him why he does not serve me with a writ for liable?
Don't worry he has my address.
In short, unless the regulator is seen to be acting in a fair and legal manner at all times they cannot and should not have the co-operation and backing from those in industry.
It's sort of like the child molesting priests, the longer they hide it the more people turn away from the church and lose their respect for same.
What makes me different from most is I finally had enough and decided to stand up to them, and at this stage of my career they can not use scare tactics to stop me.
. .
...now once more can you please understand that there are just to many in TCCA who seem to think they are above the very laws they are sworn to uphold.
I can and will if given the right opportunity show proof positive that here in this region we have several of TCCA's top management who have destroyed at least four companies by using dishonest and underhanded methods to show that they are all powerful..in my case they were found guilty beyond doubt of unlawful actions for no other reason than to protect several of their own.
And the same people were found guilty of with holding, changing and altering documents in a vendetta against two of their own....they appealed and lost....
Now how could any reasonable thinking member of the aviation community not feel revulshion at the fact that these people are still in positions of power and no actions have been taken against them by their masters in Ottawa?
One of these people is the RDCA in this region...Mitch please think about this. If what I am alledging is untrue they would be on me like fleas on a dog for liable.
They don't come after me because I have the evidence and they know it.
Look do me a favour and phone / e-mail or write a letter to the RDCA in the Pacific Region and ask him why he does not serve me with a writ for liable?
Don't worry he has my address.
In short, unless the regulator is seen to be acting in a fair and legal manner at all times they cannot and should not have the co-operation and backing from those in industry.
It's sort of like the child molesting priests, the longer they hide it the more people turn away from the church and lose their respect for same.
What makes me different from most is I finally had enough and decided to stand up to them, and at this stage of my career they can not use scare tactics to stop me.
. .
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
beentheredonethat!
- Rank 1
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 11:04 am
- Location: OutWest
