Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and
Communications
Issue 1 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 23, 1997
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 11:07 a.m. to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Mr. Michel Patrice, Clerk of the committee: Honourable senators, as clerk of the committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the Chairman. Do I have any nominations to that effect?
Senator Roberge: I move that Senator Bacon be elected Chairman of the committee.
The Clerk: Are there any other nominations? Is it agreed, honourable senators, that Senator Bacon be the Chairman of your committee?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Clerk: I would ask that Senator Bacon take the Chair.
Hon. Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Your committee did a great job last year, and I hope we can do the same. I count on each and every one of you to help.
[Translation]
Thank you. I know that I can count on each and everyone of you to ensure that this committee is very active and accomplishes great things.
[English]
We must now elect a Deputy Chairman. Do I have any nominations?
Senator Poulin: I move that Senator Forrestall be elected Deputy Chairman.
The Chairman: Senator Forrestall, do you accept the nomination as Deputy Chairman?
Senator Forrestall: Yes, I would be honoured.
The Chairman: The third item on the agenda is the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. You all have a copy of the agenda. May I please have a motion to the effect:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman and one other member of the committee to be designated after the usual consultations; and
That the subcommittee be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses and schedule hearings.
Senator Adams: Is that decision left to the Deputy Chairman and the Chairman?
The Chairman: No. We need a third member. That is for what we call the steering committee.
Senator Forrestall: That would usually be someone from the government side. You would have your consultations. That is acceptable to us.
I only have one reservation about substitution. We managed to do that by agreement from time to time in the past, and I believe that is preferable to having it formally incorporated into the motion. That is to say, if you are not present and it becomes necessary, someone else can be substituted.
The Chairman: We need a motion to that effect.
Senator Forrestall: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried. We do not need to appoint the third person today. We will appoint that person after consultation.
Honourable senators, I need a motion to print the committee's proceedings and that the Chairman be authorized to adjust this number to meet demand. Usually we print 400 copies.
Senator Forrestall: Is that an adequate number?
The Chairman: According to the figures last year, that is the number we need.
Senator Perrault: I move:
That the committee print 400 copies of its proceedings and That the Chairman be authorized to adjust this number to meet demand.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
The next item on the agenda deals with the authorization to hold meetings and to print evidence when a quorum is not present.
Senator Forrestall: Madam Chairman, I move:
That, pursuant to rule 89, the Chairman be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the printing of the evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that a representative of each party is present.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
Item No. 6 on the agenda relates to rule 104 of the Rules of the Senate and the reporting of expenses.
Senator Roberge: Madam Chairman, I move:
That, pursuant to rule 104, the Chairman be authorized to report expenses incurred by the committee during the last session.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
Item No. 7 relates to research staff.
Senator Mercier: Madam Chairman, I move:
That the Chairman be authorized to seek authority from the Senate to engage the services of such counsel and technical, clerical and other personnel as may be necessary for the purpose of the committee's examination and consideration of such bill, subject-matter of bills and estimates as are referred to it.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
Would someone care to move the other portion of the motion?
Senator Spivak: Madam Chairman, I move:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the committee; and
That the Chairman, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries and draft reports.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
Item No. 8 on the agenda deals with the authority to commit funds and certify accounts.
Senator Poulin: For the record, there is a difference between sections 32 and 34. Are they included in this motion?
The Chairman: Section 32 is to commit; section 34 is to certify.
Senator Poulin: Madam Chairman, I move:
That, pursuant to section 32 of the Financial Administration Act, authority to commit funds be conferred on the Chairman or, in the Chairman's absence, the Deputy Chairman; and
That, pursuant to section 34 of the Financial Administration Act and Guideline 3:05 of Appendix II of the Rules of the Senate, authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred on the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman and the Clerk of the committee.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
Honourable senators, Item No. 9 on the agenda deals with travel.
Senator Forrestall: Madam Chairman, I move:
That the committee empower the Chairman to designate, as required, one or more members of the committee and/or such staff as may be necessary to travel on assignment on behalf of the committee.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
Item No. 10 on the agenda deals with the travelling and living expenses of witnesses.
Senator Spivak: Madam Chairman, I move:
That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witnesses expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for no more than two witnesses from any one organization, and payment will take place upon application.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
Item No. 11 on the agenda deals with the budget. You have the summary of expenditures in front of you. Would someone care to move this motion?
Senator Forrestall: Madam Chairman, I move:
That the following budget application be approved for submission to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration subject to the granting by the Senate of authority to engage the services of personnel.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
Item No. 12 on the agenda relates to special studies and subcommittees.
Senator Roberge: Madam Chairman, I move:
That the Chairman be authorized to seek permission from the Senate to pursue its special study on transportation safety and also on Canada's international competitive position on communications.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
Senator Mercier: Madam Chairman, I move:
That a Subcommittee on communications be established to study matters relating to communications which may be referred to it from time to time by the committee; and
That the subcommittee consist of five members, three of whom shall constitute a quorum; and
That the initial membership of the Subcommittee on Communications be as follows: Honourable Senators Johnson, Perrault, Poulin, Rompkey and Spivak; and
That substitutions in the membership be communicated to the Clerk of the Subcommittee.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
Senator Poulin: Madam Chairman, I move:
That a Subcommittee on transportation safety be established to study matters relating to transport safety which may be referred to it from time to time by the committee; and
That the subcommittee consist of five members, three of whom shall constitute a quorum; and
That the initial membership of the Subcommittee on Communications be as follows: the Honourable Senators Adams, Bacon, Forrestall, Johnson, Mercier and Roberge; and
That substitutions to the membership be communicated to the Clerk of the Subcommittee.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried. Do you all agree to be members of the subcommittees just mentioned? We are merely continuing the work we did in the previous session.
Senator Adams: Has Senator Johnson declined?
The Chairman: No, she is with the Subcommittee on Communications.
Senator Adams: Is someone replacing her?
The Chairman: I do not know why her name was placed there. There are five senators on each subcommittee.
Item No. 13 on the agenda deals with time slots for regular meetings. They will be Tuesdays in Room 256-S when the Senate rises and Thursdays at 11 a.m. in Room 256-S.
Two bills will be deferred to us. One is Bill S-2, to amend the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act. Senator Rompkey was the sponsor of that bill in the chamber.
We also have Bill S-4, which will come to the committee later. The information on Bill S-4 will be sent to your office. Bill S-4 is the Maritime Liability Act. You will have all the information on Bill S-4. Unfortunately, I do not have all the information on Bill S-2, but it will be sent to you before we have the next meeting.
We could present our work plan on October 30 at 11 o'clock.
On November 4, we could begin with Bill S-2, and you will have all the information prior to that date. If that is agreeable to you, that is my suggestion today.
Senator Poulin: Madam Chairman, I notice that we have scheduled two meetings per week.
The Chairman: If need be.
Senator Poulin: We are all aware that both subcommittees were extremely active during the last session. Which of the two meetings will be cancelled if there is need for only one per week? Will it be the Thursday meeting?
The Chairman: It would be the Thursday at 11 o'clock, yes.
Senator Poulin: Thank you.
The Chairman: We will meet regularly on the Tuesdays when the Senate rises.
Senator Forrestall: We can take care of our own agendas.
The Chairman: We can work on that in the meantime, but on October 30 we will present you with an agenda for the committee as a whole. Perhaps the two subcommittee Chairmen could work on their agendas in the meantime, and then we could discuss that as a whole.
Senator Poulin: That is a good idea.
[Translation]
To have an agenda or schedule of activities for the three groups.
The Chairman: Yes, we could discuss that at 11 o'clock on October 30. We could begin with Bill S-2 on November 4. This would leave us enough time to call witnesses and to distribute the large binders that we have on Bill S-4. We still do not have binders for Bill S-2. These will be sent to your offices.
[English]
Michel Patrice will be the clerk of our committee. We are very pleased to have him with us. Cathy will be working with Senator Forrestall on the Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, and Michelle will be working with the Subcommittee on Communications. Terry Thomas will be the researcher for the subcommittee on communications, and Martin Brennan will do the transportation research. We have all the people we need. We can determine later on if we need more people, but we want to keep the same people we had. They did a tremendous job on the preliminary report, and we want them to keep working at it so that we are ready to table the reports when they are finalized and we have finished our work.
Are there any other matters you wish to discuss?
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: I have a technical question regarding item 13 on our agenda, namely the time slots for regular meetings. I see here that meetings can be scheduled either for Tuesday or Thursday. Do the subcommittees meet on the same day of the week in the same room or are they assigned to a different location?
The Chairman: No, not necessarily. That is why I would like the two subcommittee Chairmans to get together and try and work out a schedule that would be acceptable to all members and not impede the activities of the transportation and communications committee. Perhaps we could come up with a schedule that would be acceptable to all members for October 30.
Senator Corbin: I was wondering about this, although this may be of no interest to my colleagues. There has been a proliferation of subcommittees, which in itself is a good thing, but which puts considerable pressure on us, given the amount of available space.
The Chairman: I do not wish to interrupt you. I was saying that the committee would meet regularly on Tuesday for consideration of bills whereas if truly necessary, it could meet at 11 o'clock on Thursday as well.
Senator Corbin: Subcommittees could also meet at this time.
The Chairman: Yes.
[English]
Senator Forrestall: If I might be allowed to speak about Bill S-2, I briefly made two points in the chamber the other day.
This is the first time that a piece of government legislation has been initiated here. As a general rule -- there have been exceptions, of course -- it is the subject-matter that is referred to us, and we have called it "pre-study." This is different, so I would signal that we would like to do a good job of this. It is incumbent upon us to demonstrate to our detractors that we can indeed do good work -- initiative work as well as the second-sober-thought type of work.
The second point is that in order to do that good work -- I have a feeling at this point in time, but I will not prejudge it -- I may want to ask the committee or a subcommittee of the full committee to go down to Washington and spend a day with some of the members of the National Transportation Safety Board to examine more closely the question of full-time members versus part-time members, the role of the board, and the organizational structure of the investigation, inquiry and report. I mention that so that it does not come as a surprise if, in a few weeks, should I think that we are not getting the fullness of the response we need here, I put that on the table.
Senator Spivak: Does the United States jurisdiction extend to traffic and trucking and roads?
Senator Forrestall: Yes, it does.
Senator Spivak: That is a good reason to go there.
Senator Forrestall: Senator Spivak, before this committee is dead, it will have a ban on Sea-doos.
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: Further to Senator Forestall's comment on the importance that the committee should assign to legislation originating in the Senate, I did not see any specific item in our budget earmarked for communications. This committee will nevertheless have some serious responsibilities toward all of our Senate colleagues. Should we not take steps to ensure from the outset that we have available to us a communications expert who can convey to the Canadian public how very seriously the Senate takes its work.
The Chairman: A total of $10,000 out of our $46,000 budget has been earmarked for communications.
[English]
Senator Adams: Madam Chairman, I know that Bill S-2 will be interesting. We have heard some witnesses regarding transportation safety. We heard from people who are concerned about rules in the government. Do we have a deadline on Bill S-2 within which to get it back to the house? I am concerned about that.
The Chairman: We have two bills with which we must deal, Bill S-2 and Bill S-4. We will start with Bill S-2. Bill S-4 has not yet been referred to us. However, I have not heard about any deadline.
Senator Forrestall: I am not suggesting we spend six months or a year looking at this bill, but it is that type of legislation that is living and must expand and change constantly to meet constant demands on it.
We all know that the number of airplanes that will be in our skies in ten years' time, relative to today, is so large as to defy imagination. We do not want to see the number of fatalities rise proportionately. We would like to see the number of people who are fatally injured in airplane accidents continue to come down in the sense of fatalities per million flying miles or seat miles.
We should move with care and with some degree of depth. For example, I would like very much for that committee to hear -- as we did, Madam Chairman -- from the NASA officials to whom President Clinton has give so many millions of dollars to determine whether there is an answer. He has promised the American people that it can be done and will be done.
We must now go offshore to protect our people. We must use our legitimate connections with countries all over the world to ensure that their standards in traffic control centres meet or are striving to meet our own standards. In that way, we can make major contributions to holding down the actual number of deaths.
This is an important piece of legislation. I have had a personal interest in this field for 25 or 30 years now, and I should like to see the Senate make some meaningful contributions to the bill. If they are not acceptable, that is fine, but at least we will have taken the step of alerting people and jogging their minds and forcing them to think ahead. Safety must be a developed culture. It will not happen unless everyone thinks about safety.
Senator De Bané: Madam Chairman, I suggest that the most urgent and pressing problem is the question of air traffic control. That responsibility of the Department of Transport has been privatized. It is now called NAVCAN.
The major malaise in NAVCAN at the moment is that the airline industry has such a dominant presence within that organization that the president and CEO has just resigned. The Chairman, who represents the airline industry, is now doing both the job of Chairman and of president. He is the representative of the airline industry.
In a nutshell, the malaise in NAVCAN is that the other stakeholders, particularly the air traffic controllers, find there is not enough breathing space for them. The airlines are so obsessed with bottom-line results that there is malaise within that organization. Traffic controllers are very patient but if, at some point, that malaise worsens, then we will have a large problem on our hands.
The resignation of the CEO is troublesome. I suggest respectfully that we give high priority to studying what is going on in NAVCAN, why so many VPs are resigning, and why it is not working as it should.
The Chairman: We can add this to the subcommittee on transportation safety, if you would agree, Senator De Bané.
[Translation]
I think the best way to do this is to ensure some continuity with the work of the Subcommittee on Transportation Safety. We could add that to our responsibilities.
[English]
Senator De Bané: It is quite urgent.
The Chairman: Would you agree to add that to your responsibilities, Senator Forrestall?
Senator Forrestall: Yes. I agree that the issue is analogous to safety, and it is a matter of concern. That concern was apparent to all of us when we visited that area last year. We certainly can make a start on that item. Senator De Bané is quite correct in bringing it forward. I have lately been preoccupied with catching up on defence issues, but I did want to ask whether the government had developed a position with respect to the apparent trouble there.
[Translation]
Senator Corbin: Madam Chairman, my question is along the same line as that of Senator De Bané. I was wondering if pursuant to your order of reference, you were at liberty to undertake any study, under the broad mantle of transportation and communications, deemed useful by the members of this committee without having to seek permission from the Senate to do so.
[English]
Senator Forrestall, among others, is probably aware of the great degree of concern existing in the Atlantic area -- I do not know about the rest of Canada -- with respect to the continued diminution of services to small localities, services which were perennially available. The railways are gone or going. Shipping is a problem. People feel left out of the mainstream of transport as it is now developing.
We should also not forget the present over-crowding on our highways. A four-lane highway is being built in New Brunswick, but it is already being crowded. Whether you travel at 2 a.m. on a Sunday morning or at 4 p.m. on a Monday afternoon, trucks literally crowd automobiles off the road. The security component aspects are literally frightening. People are afraid of getting on the roads these days.
There would be just cause for this committee to eventually broadly examine that whole question. We all appreciate that road transportation is a provincial responsibility, however, we dump a lot of money into it.
This question has a high priority in the minds of ordinary Canadians. As much as we do examine sophisticated and technical aspects in this committee, we must also get back to the basics and show some deep concern for the things that bother the run-of-the-mill Canadians.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I think that item 12 is broad enough to allow us to add these issues to the responsibilities of the Subcommittee on Transportation Safety. Yours and Senator De Bané's concerns are reflected in the orders of reference and this means that we can include this in the provision that we have just adopted.
[English]
Senator Forrestall: Many of you here will recall that, from the beginning, it was intended to carry out Senator Keith Davies' wishes that we look at truck safety on the highways. I adopted this idea from Senator Davey and picked it up and ran with it. This is an urgent question. We ran across the difficulty of jurisdiction, so we expanded our terms of reference to include the general state of safety, to identify the issues, and, in the second phase of our work, to put forward possible solutions. The item is already very much on our agenda.
We ran out of time with respect to trucking because we held it to be so important that we wanted to ensure that we had an opportunity to take a full and serious look at it. We even considered and still have for consideration the engagement of some expert help that might get us through this. We have heard from a number of witnesses, and we have some useful information in our interim report, which is safety identification. However, you are correct. We would welcome your attending and participating in part of that work or all of it, as you will.
Senator Corbin: I will.
Senator Forrestall: It was Senator Davey's concern four or five years ago, and, at least in our own way, we are muddling through. I wish he was here to prod us a little more just as you are doing.
[Translation]
The Chairman: The preliminary report drawn up by Bruce Carson covers a wide range of topics but there is room for adding a few more without having to create another subcommittee.
Senator Corbin: Madam Chairman, are you aware of the work that the House of Commons transportation committee intends to undertake this year so that we can avoid a certain amount of duplication?
The Chairman: No, I have just been appointed Chairman. I intend to find out what the other side is doing so that we do not cover the same ground. However, legislation is, as far as I know, the primary responsibility of House of Commons committees. However, I will check first to see if other activities are planned. I was unable to do that before you actually appointed me to the Chair.
[English]
Senator Spivak: Honourable senators, with regard to Senator De Bané's concern with NAVCAN, it is my understanding that the safety regulations and the implementation and enforcement of them are the responsibility of the federal authority. Since we have a complete destruction of the Department of Transport in terms of personnel, et cetera, I would hope that that forms part of the agenda. If you are interested in safety, what has happened recently is quite germane to that question.
I am also concerned that this is adding more to the shoulders of the safety committee. However, all after, the things that are happening now are as a result of the freedom to move and the change in transportation policy, and the unintended consequences of that are upon us.
I do not know how long you will take with the study, but it seems to me we should make some radical recommendations as to policy. Otherwise, the fundamental structure would continue, and it would not help much. We need to look at the initial policy, what has happened, and then recommend on that.
Senator Perrault: We were given assurances that the matter of safety was under discussion and that there would be regular inspections and all the rest. Perhaps it is a good idea to review the progress we have made in the area to ensure that that commitment has been kept.
Another aspect to transportation is a concern to many Canadians. The Canadian trucking industry has been in serious difficulty for a year. There have been bankruptcies and everything else. This almost goes to the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, in a sense, but it might be of interest to look at the Canadian transportation industry and whether it is in peril as a result of competition.
The Chairman: The trucking industry was a great concern to us.
Senator Perrault: Market share has been lost to the Americans on a big scale.
Senator Forrestall: Senator Perrault is correct. We have problems ranging from Mexico to Canada. The committee must look seriously at this. We can make a contribution to the national dialogue in this area.
We now have six weeks in which we should review the work we have done so far, cross the T's and dot the I's, and report to Parliament as we had undertaken to do, having sought already the authority to carry on with the second phase, which is the bringing forward of suggestions and initiatives to help the situation.
The changing nature of transportation and communication in Canada warrant that Senator Poulin's subcommittee and our subcommittee continue with annual requirements for legitimacy. A virtually permanent status is probably the way in which this committee can best handle its work.
I do not see anything wrong with us reporting to the Chairman and to the full committee from time to time on very narrow and specific items such as economical tires on trucks and the rubber you see on the side of the rode.
Senator Perrault: There have been some horrible accidents involving tractor trailers and ordinary motorists. We should look at that subject.
Senator Forrestall: We ought to isolate subject matter such as that and report to the full committee; in turn, our Chairman could submit a further interim report to call upon the Senate to do something about these matters.
The Chairman: We will adjourn the meeting until next week, October 30, at 11 o'clock.
The committee adjourned.
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 4, 1997
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, to which was referred Bill S-2, to amend the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, met this day at 4:30 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator J. Michael Forrestall (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.
The Deputy Chairman: I welcome both Mr. DeVillers and Mr. Johnson to our committee this afternoon.
We are here to give consideration to Bill S-2, an act to amend the Canadian Transportation Act and Investigation Safety Board Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.
We will be making history this afternoon in that this is the first bill we will be dealing with, ab initio, since this is a Senate bill.We will then pass it along to you in the whatever form that may be, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary.
We are cognizant of the need, to carefully consider this bill and to make suggestions if we can find room for improvement. The Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board is an important and critical part of our transportation culture and safety, not to mention the work of the board in trying to determine what happened in any particular incident and how such occurrences might be prevented in the future.
With that, I would welcome my colleagues who are anxious to hear your presentation, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (M.P., Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affiars): I should like to formally introduce Mr. Ken Johnson, the Executive Director of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.
The Deputy Chairman: I believe everyone here knows Mr. Johnson.
Mr. DeVillers: He will be pleased to answer any technical questions the committee may have, should my responses require clarification.
It is with pleasure that I appear as a witness before the Standing Senate Committee on Transportation and Communications regarding Bill S-2, to amend the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act.
In 1989, Parliament passed the CTAISB bill which was proclaimed in March 1990. Following a review required by the statute, and on the basis of the operating experience of the Transportation Safety Board over the past seven years, some legislative changes have been proposed to fine-tune the TSB's already good legislation. These changes reflect suggestions from the transportation industry and from governments at both the federal and provincial level.
[Translation]
Several of the proposed amendments are of an administrative nature. Some are aimed at improving operations or enhancing the independence of the Transportation Safety Board.
The administrative proposals in Bill S-2 are designed to correct some of the definitions contained in the act and to clarify some provisions relating to pipeline accidents or occurrences. The legislative amendments would also allow various departments to continue their work while the TSB is investigating an occurrence. Another amendment is aimed at making it easier for the TSB to conduct investigations at the request of provinces using a cost recovery formula.
[English]
Several proposed changes will put increased emphasis on the identification of safety deficiencies through the TSB investigations. To encourage the provision of safety information to the board, there is a proposal to provide greater protection to information given to investigators, for example, by witnesses. Similarly, several proposals would further clarify how the board's work is distinct from that of the police and from legal proceedings. A civil penalty is introduced for persons failing to provide information to a TSB investigator. Another proposal will provide protection to representations made to the board on its confidential draft reports by persons with direct interest who are asked to review them. Such protection would be similar to that provided for witness statements.
[Translation]
Some of the proposals concern on-board recorders more commonly referred to as black boxes. Video recordings of flight crews would henceforth be considered privileged recordings. However, sounds other than voices recorded would not be considered privileged under the legislation. For example, the noise produced by a reactor would not be privileged. Another amendment would extend the privileged status of on-board recordings to restrict their use in civil proceedings. Currently, the recordings may not be used in any criminal or disciplinary proceedings.
[English]
In closing, I believe this bill will help to improve Canada's outstanding reputation in the field of safety investigation. I urge all members of this committee and the Senate to give it their unqualified support.
Senator Spivak: What is the status of this organization? Is it a quasi-judicial tribunal?
Mr. DeVillers: No.
Senator Spivak: What then is the official status of this particular agency?
Mr. Ken Johnson, Executive Director, Transportation Safety Board of Canada: Mr. Chairman, it is an administrative agency. It is not a tribunal and it does not determine rights. It does not take away freedoms, assess fines or impose the results of its work or the recommendations it produces.
Senator Spivak: Is it an agency?
Mr. Johnson: It is an advisory body.
Senator Spivak: With regard to the scope of its operations, my understanding from previous briefings is that the similar institution in the United States also has oversight over surface traffic, that is, trucks. I am not clear what its mandate is over traffic on water, or if its mandate includes such traffic.
Could you go through the scope of its mandate and the reasons the Americans include surface traffic and we do not?
Mr. DeVillers: The answer relates to constitutional areas of jurisdiction in that truck traffic falls under provincial jurisdiction in Canada.
Senator Spivak: I am aware of that. However, the United States has a federal system, as do we. There is a general clause on which the federal government could fall back which would allow it to do almost anything. I have heard it said that it could be used to deal with environmental protection and other issues. I recognize the legislative reason, but I am concerned that there may be others.
Mr. Johnson: The mandate of the American safety board has to do with aviation, marine and what they call "surface" which includes railways, marine and some highways. The highway accidents for which they have a mandate to investigate are those which include railway crossing accidents; however, they are selected in cooperation with the states. Therefore, the states do play a part in these decisions.
In Canada, we have an unrestricted mandate on railway crossing accidents, as long as they occur on federally regulated railways.
Senator Spivak: Does that fall under the interstate commerce clause or not?
Mr. Johnson: It is a part of the national transportation safety board's own legislation.
Senator Spivak: In Canada, how would you classify the jurisdiction?
Mr. Johnson: It is all federally regulated transportation, which includes aviation, marine, railways, and pipelines to the extent that they are federally regulated. Shortline railways that operate entirely within a province are outside our jurisdiction. Trucking is much more complicated.
Mr. DeVillers: One of the amendments being proposed would allow agreements between the board and the provinces to deal with the very situation of shortline rail. My impression is that there is no will coming from the provinces to investigate surface incidents and accidents. I think that clause would be broad enough to permit that. However, it would require the will of the provinces.
Senator Spivak: My understanding is there was a delegation to the provinces of some former federal powers with regard to trucking.
Mr. DeVillers: That is correct.
Senator Spivak: Would those relate in any way to federal surveillance of regulations related to trucking traffic, for example?
Mr. DeVillers: If the powers were delegated, as you have indicated, senator, then there would have to be negotiations with the provinces.
Senator Spivak: Do you mean if they were delegated through legal means such as statutory instruments?
Mr. DeVillers: Yes. Those negotiations would have to take place before they could come within the scope of this legislation.
Senator Spivak: I am also interested in the marine traffic. Of course, I have a favourite hobby horse which is Sea-Doos. When representatives of the Coast Guard testified before a subcommittee of this committee, I found out that the Coast Guard has jurisdiction over all inland waters and the traffic therein. What powers does this body have as it relates to safety in inland waterways?
Mr. DeVillers: Some inland waterways are federal and others are provincial. However, not all of them fall into one category or the other, and that is part of the difficulty in dealing with boating safety.
Senator Spivak: Apparently, anything that moves on inland waters falls under the responsibility of the Coast Guard.
Mr. Chairman, as I recall, when we heard testimony concerning the responsibility of the Coast Guard in inland waters, we were told that they have total responsibility for inland water traffic? Is my recollection flawed?
The Deputy Chairman: No, it is correct in some aspects.
Mr. Johnson: The jurisdiction that the Coast Guard has is for regulatory purposes. Any waters over which the Coast Guard would have jurisdiction the federal government would also have jurisdiction over in terms of accident investigation. In most places in Canada, my understanding is that we have the option to investigate accidents involving Sea-Doos. Pleasure craft are within our mandate. However, we do not do very many pleasure vehicle investigations in any mode. We do more investigations into aviation accidents than we do into marine accidents. However, the board has some authority, and it has considered becoming involved in investigating pleasure craft accidents.
Senator Spivak: Can you do that at your own instigation?
Mr. Johnson: Yes.
Senator Spivak: You do not need anyone to come to you with a complaint. You could do that within the powers that are being granted to you in this bill?
Mr. Johnson: The board has the discretion to do that today.
Senator Poulin: As I was somewhat late in arriving I do not know if these questions have already been asked.
[Translation]
As Director General of the Transportation Safety Board, to use the old title since I still have some trouble recalling the new one, how will the changes to the legislation affect your work?
[English]
Mr. Johnson: The changes which are proposed here generally will make our work more efficient and more effective. For example, the proposal to provide privilege to representations made by the companies when they receive draft reports will make the companies more open and more willing to provide safety information to the board quickly.
The proposals to keep the information from being readily available to the police and to the regulators will encourage these witnesses to be more forthcoming in dealing with our investigators. From the perspective of the board, these would be important and useful changes.
Senator Poulin: How many board members do you have now?
Mr. Johnson: We have four board members with a possibility of five. There are four appointed members.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Johnson will be aware that I very forcefully disagree with the amendments proposed as well as with some of the observations made. However, he is the expert.
I draw to the Parliamentary Secretary's attention section 4(1) of the act:
There is hereby established a board to be known as the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board, consisting of not more than five members appointed by the Governor in Council.
I find it amazing that neither of you gentlemen has addressed this because I think it is vital. Section 4(1), which is to be replaced, provides as follows:
There is hereby established a board to be known as the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board, consisting of not more than five full-time members appointed by the Governor in Council.
This is the only significant amendment. The others are housekeeping changes, which we welcome. However, this change cannot be classified as such.
I am sorry that Senator Bacon was not able to be with us this evening because were I sitting elsewhere at this table, my comments would be very critical.
I want an explanation as to why neither of you, in your opening comments, addressed this proposed move from five full-time members to four part-time and only one full-time member. What are we doing to the board? More important, why are we doing this?
Mr. DeVillers: I would ask Mr. Johnson to respond.
The Deputy Chairman: This is a policy matter on which I am asking your advice, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary. Mr. Johnson is here to provide technical details.
Mr. DeVillers: As I mentioned in my comments, these amendments are based on the experiences of the board and on recommendations which have come from the industry and from various levels of government.
The Deputy Chairman: Could you indicate to us which members of industry have suggested this to you?
Mr. DeVillers: I would have to defer to Mr. Johnson.
The Deputy Chairman: Perhaps Mr. Johnson could then enlighten the Chairman and the members?
Mr. Johnson: I will do my best, Senator Forrestall.
The initiative to introduce the possibility of having part-time members is part of a government initiative which came forward in the last house. It did not proceed all the way then. The proposals here are consistent with the proposals made at that time to, generally, reduce the numbers of members on boards and commissions and, where possible, to introduce the possibility of having part-time members.
From the perspective of my office, which may be a little different, I do not see a difficulty with the government having the discretion to appoint either full-time or part-time members. The boards pay their members roughly $90,000 per year. They have difficulty attracting people to move from Halifax or Vancouver because any person with the wisdom, background and experience to sit on a board is usually a senior employee somewhere and is well settled.
It is possible that one or two part-time board positions could be filled by people who would not want to commit to a full-time position but who could make a strong contribution to the deliberations of the board.
The Deputy Chairman: I thank Mr. Johnson for that answer. It is a sad day if that is indeed the policy of government. As Chairman, it is not up to me to say any more.
The subcommittee of this committee began its work a little more than a year ago. They have heard evidence that all is not well with the board and its process. As I am sure you are aware, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, severe criticisms have been made and they must be answered if the board is to enjoy confidence and integrity regarding its work. So far I have heard no one address these concerns. These are not solely my concerns and I am not making them up.
A number of deficiencies in the transportation safety board's mandate and operations have been pointed out by witnesses who appeared here. The maritime division of the company of Master Mariners of Canada criticized the board as having no maritime or marine experience and thus having "glacially slow" report production. The witness added that the board's reports often miss or underestimate vital issues resulting in bad morale among the field investigators to the point where they sometimes disown their own report, feeling it has been rewritten so heavily that it no longer accurately reflects their investigation.
That is a very serious charge and it is one of several heard by the subcommittee. Robert Ballantyne, president of the Railway Association of Canada, came here and suggested the mandate of the board be expanded to include interprovincial commercial transport. That matter was apparently dismissed out of hand because of a jurisdictional problem.
Protecting human life is the responsibility of us all. That transcends political division lines. When we see a wrong, we must try to correct it.
It was suggested that the board's mandate be expanded to include interprovincial commercial transport, interprovincial buses and trucks. This suggestion was made because more people are killed and injured from motor vehicle accidents in Canada than all other modes combined. This is an interesting suggestion. I hope we can explore this further with respect to Bill S-2.
We heard representatives from the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers refer to the board as a "toothless tiger." Another witness referred to the role of Transport Canada as being that of a "lap-dog." I do not enjoy hearing the safety board being criticized in that manner without a response being made. There has yet to be a response worthy of remembering, let alone acting upon. There has been no leadership.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary perhaps address those two or three examples? We heard seven or eight examples. The members of the subcommittee were concerned because, in this move away from full-time members to part-time members, part-time members were writing the reports of the full-time investigators. It may be efficient, but it does nothing to address national safety, the resolution of safety problems or to enhance our confidence in the board.
I feel quite free to make these remarks because I have a certain parental responsibility. I also have a special bond with the board because we fought a long battle before it was put in place. Although the Parliamentary Secretary may consider these two or three issues to be minor, will he address these very serious concerns?
Mr. DeVillers: Honourable senators, as to the concerns raised with the subcommittee, some of the proposed amendments we are dealing with today may assist investigators in fulfilling their functions. If there is more protection for witness statements, people might then be more forthcoming. That is one of the intentions of this amendment.
As to the jurisdictional concern, the history of this country has proven that one cannot very easily amend the Constitution as it may relate to the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments. There is always an extensive period of negotiations. Some provincial jurisdictions in transport are at that stage, others are delegated.
With respect to the other concerns which were raised, Mr. Johnson has more information to address those issues. Therefore, I defer to him, if that is permissible.
Mr. Johnson: With respect to the assertion made by Master Mariners that, in essence, the investigators' reports are altered before they become public, when the Aviation Safety Board and when this board's legislation were before previous parliaments, there was a very clear intent that investigators would come under a director of investigations who would report the results of investigations to the board. The board would subsequently prepare a draft report and send that to persons with a direct interest in the findings. That would be done on a confidential basis. The board would consider the representations of those people and then make its final report. If the board does its job properly and in accordance with its mandate from Parliament, one must expect to find differences between the investigators' work, which appears on file unaltered, and the board's public report that has added to it the results of the representations made by those who have an interest in the findings as well as the board's own wisdom and its consideration of the facts.
Senator Spivak: I want the record to reflect that under "peace, order and good government" the government, if it so desired, could address this aspect. It requires no amendment to the Constitution.
Mr. DeVillers: Yes, I agree. However, I would also surmise that there would be objections from many provinces if that were applied.
The Deputy Chairman: I certainly respect devolved authority. It would seem to me that the provinces may welcome this process. In the United States, for example, the vast majority of states welcomed the equivalent boards' intervention in areas such as interstate movement, trains and shipping. They had experience to offer. Perhaps the provinces may wish to share their experience in this regard.
I am being told that we are headed in the right direction, but it seems to me that we are crawling at a snail's pace.
What is wrong with the U.S. system?
Mr. Johnson: There is nothing particularly wrong with the U.S. system. They have one good system and I believe we have a different good system. I shall touch on some of the things which I believe are better about our system as compared to theirs.
As I mentioned before, we have a formal separation between the work of the board and its professional investigative staff. There are two lines of delegation in the board so that the Chairman has the power to delegate to the staff and board members the administrative aspects and those areas which deal with reports.
When witnesses appear before the board to make their representations on draft reports, they are appearing before a board that is still independent, in that it has not directed the conduct of the investigation itself. Those people will stand before the board with the same status as the staff. This gives the board a degree of objectivity.
In the Canadian board there is a similar mandate for all modes of transportation, whereas in the American board it is quite uneven. They have a smaller mandate in marine investigations because the Coast Guard does much of the marine investigation. They have a strong mandate in aviation and highways. It is a broader mandate than ours, but they must exercise it in cooperation with the states. Where we have the mandate to investigate, say, crossing accidents, we have it entirely.
There is greater discretion in the Canadian legislation as to what may be investigated as it relates to causes and contributing factors, including the notion of safety deficiencies. That gives the board much more scope in doing its analysis and making recommendations that will achieve greater clarity.
The Americans have a party system, whereas we introduce observers. Our investigators conduct the investigations themselves. In the United States, the parties conduct parts of the investigation. We believe that reduces the independence and objectivity of the investigations.
We also have greater independence in other areas. The Parliament of Canada set up the Civil Aviation Tribunal to deal with appeals on licensing and appeals on violations. In the United States, that is part of the mandate of the transportation safety board so, for example, if a pilot had a problem with a medical licence and came to the transportation safety board and appealed the loss of his licence, and if that was restored by the board and that individual then went out and subsequently had an accident, it is difficult to imagine that the board would not have a conflict of interest in that kind of investigation.
We have a process in Canada whereby we circulate the confidential draft report to persons with a direct interest in the findings to ensure accuracy and the fairness of the system. That exchange goes from the Chairman of our board to the chief executive officer of the company operating the train, aircraft or ship. In the United States, they have an exchange but it tends to be at the technical level and there is not the same executive input. Both systems are very good, but I believe ours has some features that are better.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Johnson, we were told by the Halifax Marine Pilots Committee that the board refused to implement many of the changes recommended by the review commission; changes that did not require legislation to be implemented; changes which they said would reduce the time it takes for a report to be made public and improve the overall efficiency of the board itself.
With that type of criticism out there, unanswered, you have to ask: Are we rejecting progress for unintelligent reasons? I do not know why we do not seize the opportunity, with the introduction of this bill, to move ahead and enact legislation that would be better than that of the U.S. I would suggest to you that, if we cannot make improvements now, then perhaps we should get someone else to do our job. That question has been hanging out there for eight or 10 months now. No one has answered it. You certainly have not answered it tonight. Indeed, you have not answered very many questions tonight. I am vitally concerned about the perception the Canadian public has of the board, as you make it smaller, with part-time members and one Chairman.
If there were a national disaster in Canadian transportation I would not want my only source of information to be a CTV or CBC reporter telling me what happened, how it happened, when it happened, and how many died. I want information from a professional who knows what he or she is talking about. That is why I like the U.S. system. The loss of that plane off the coast of the United States provides a good example. I would have had no confidence in aviation had it not been for that man, that one single man, who, literally every four or five hours, was on the tube reassuring Americans that flying was safe, and that they would investigate until they found the cause.
Incidentally, I believe that this committee should meet with the American board, and that should be done as quickly as possible. Indeed, when Senator Bacon comes back, I will plead with her to seek permission for this committee to travel to the U.S. so that we may have input from the American experts.
Senator Poulin: In your opening remarks, you said that the legislation of the transportation safety board is already excellent and that this is really fine-tuning the legislation. As a former deputy minister, it is my belief that when we fine-tune legislation the objective is to increase efficiency while decreasing costs. Would I be correct in assuming that that is what we are attempting to do in this instance?
Mr. DeVillers: Yes, I think that is a safe assumption.
Senator Poulin: Do you think that the additional flexibility these changes will bring about will be sufficient? For instance, Senator Forrestall mentioned that there should be no obligation on members to be full-time members, but that they should have a choice of being either full-time members or part-time members. These sorts of changes have occurred in quite a few agencies, both provincial and federal, in order to save money, increase flexibility and to recognize a fluctuating work load. Have you been able to decrease the permanent staff at the board and yet ensure that you have enough part-time or full-time staff to do the job but still make financial savings?
Mr. Johnson: I think the simple answer to your question is yes. There is a combination of full-time staff, part-time staff, temporary staff and hired consultants.
Senator Poulin: How many staff are at the board now?
Mr. Johnson: About 225. At our peak, we had about 300, and program review brought us down to the number we have now, and reduced our expenditures by close to one-third.
Senator Poulin: With 225 members of staff, are you able to serve the five board members efficiently so that they have sufficient information and research assistance to do their work properly?
Mr. Johnson: So far we have been able to achieve that, although not without a lot of effort on our part.
[Translation]
Senator Poulin: When administrative changes are made to a piece of legislation, there are several approaches that can be taken, including an omnibus bill. Why have you chosen this approach?
Mr. DeVillers: We are introducing a great many changes. We felt it would be preferable to proceed this way in order to bring in these amendments.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: I have a quick supplementary question. The 225 staff members that you have now have a vastly reduced mandate. You no longer investigate accidents unless they are "significant," and even then you do not consider yourselves obliged to investigate accidents that simply take life or that simply cause substantial damage. You have the freedom to chose what you will investigate and what you will examine. You do that for a very valid purpose, and I have never questioned that purpose for a moment because it is too important. If we are to avoid the repetition of certain accidents, we must concentrate our efforts on those, determine the cause, and take corrective action. At the same time, however, it means the national board no longer has the same work load. You are much more selective. Am I correct?
Mr. Johnson: We are more selective than were. We conduct fewer investigations than we used to conduct.
The Deputy Chairman: Could you give us some numbers on the air side to illustrate that point?
Mr. Johnson: On the air side, we investigate approximately 100 a year.
There have been changes in the definition of what is an investigation and what is not. We still do a significant amount of work without actually conducting a formal investigation by the board. For example, with respect to fatal accidents that we do not investigate, normally we send an investigator into the field to gather information and provide technical data to the coroner. We work closely with them. I do not think the public is badly served at the end of the day.
The Deputy Chairman: You investigate about 100 air incidents. How many were there last year?
Mr. Johnson: Probably 2,500 were reported, but many of them were very minor.
Senator Spivak: Of course people are hired or commissioned to do major investigations.
Mr. Johnson: I do not understand.
Senator Spivak: If there is a major investigation, can it not be done by an outside body?
Mr. Johnson: Not really.
Senator Spivak: I am thinking of major inquiries such as the inquiry into the disaster at Dryden, Ontario.
Mr. Johnson: That was done by a commission of inquiry for very specific reasons. This board has the mandate to conduct its own public inquiries when necessary, and if there were a Dryden accident tomorrow, it would be the decision of the board as to whether it should investigate. However, I could not imagine it doing anything but choosing to investigate and hold a public inquiry.
Senator Spivak: Do you also have the power to launch an independent commission of inquiry headed by a judge, or is that strictly a government power?
Mr. Johnson: The board can decide to conduct a public inquiry. If the board decides to do so, it can name one of its members or some of its members to conduct the inquiry, or it can name someone else if it chooses.
Senator Spivak: It can name outside people to conduct the inquiry.
Mr. Johnson: Yes, it has that discretion.
Senator Spivak: Is it totally within the board's discretion?
Mr. Johnson: That is correct.
Senator Spivak: Not the government's discretion.
Mr. Johnson: The Governor in Council can require the board to do so, if it is seen as necessary and the board has not decided to do it on its own.
The Deputy Chairman: We have suffered from cutbacks and many things, but for what you are doing, there is only one antidote, and that is amendment. We are not prepared to do that now. We want to hear from others.
We may ask you to come back to testify again before the committee, Mr. DeVillers.
Mr. DeVillers: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, if you require further information I will be pleased to assist you in any way I can.
The Deputy Chairman: I know that Senator Bacon, were she here, would urge upon you the position of the members of the committee. We are very concerned about proposed legislation and we want to do a good job. She would thank you for assisting the committee and, on her behalf, I would do so. She apologizes for her regrettable but unavoidable absence.
Mr. Johnson: Senator Forrestall, you put a couple of items on the table, and I did not get a chance to address them. One was the assertion that the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers referred to the board as a "toothless tiger" and that its relationship with Transport Canada was that of a "lap-dog." Anyone can make an assertion, but I think the evidence is to the contrary. If you look at the recent accident at Edson, Alberta, where runaway cars ran into a train, you will see that the board released a final report with strong recommendations that were picked up by the public and responded to by the Minister of Transport who is delaying the introduction of the changes to the Railway Safety Act. The company responded well.
Subsequently, there was an accident near Biggar, Saskatchewan, where there were passenger safety problems. The board brought out strong recommendations asking for action within 30 days. I do not think that is a toothless tiger, and I think the board is doing its job.
The Deputy Chairman: I did not suggest for a moment that you are not doing your job. I merely said that you are not doing it as well as you could do it and as well as Canadians might expect you to do it. I suggest to you that, in the beginning, the raison d'être of this particular board had to do with the separation of the regulatory agency from the investigative agency.
Mr. Johnson: That is correct.
The Deputy Chairman: This is not good legislation. You are not moving fast enough; you are moving too slow.
How do we satisfy that separation of investigative from legislative? How do we do that? You investigate 100 air incidents. Who investigates the other 2,400 incidents, other than the regulatory body?
Mr. Johnson: The regulatory body investigates. The Department of Transport does not investigate for our purposes.
The Deputy Chairman: We have not achieved our purpose, have we?
Mr. Johnson: I am not sure what your purpose was.
The Deputy Chairman: I will repeat it, Mr. Johnson, because it is vital.
Mr. Johnson: I agree with you.
The Deputy Chairman: The purpose is to separate the regulatory agency from the investigative agency.
Mr. Johnson: Correct, and that has been done.
The Deputy Chairman: Would you agree with that Mr. Parliamentary Secretary?
Mr. DeVillers: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Deputy Chairman: Then what happens to the other 2,400 investigations on the air side alone? Who investigates those? It is a rhetorical question, and we all know the answer.
Do you really believe the work you are doing is good enough? I expect better from our transportation safety board. If you need more money, put us to work. Challenge us to support the Parliamentary Secretary in going after additional funding. This committee is open to such suggestions.
I will give the Parliamentary Secretary the last word.
Mr. DeVillers: I have appreciated this opportunity to appear before this committee, Mr. Chairman.
If you have further questions after you have heard more evidence, we will be happy to respond.
The Deputy Chairman: We may ask you to return.
Honourable senators, we must approve expenditures for transmission purposes to the Internal Economy Committee. I have been provided with a summary.
Senator Poulin: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That the budget application for the study on transportation safety be approved for submission to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Carried.
Senator Spivak: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That the budget application for the study on Canada's international competitive position in communications be proved for submission to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: Colleagues, thank you very much.
The committee adjourned.