THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 4, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met with videoconference this day at 6:45 p.m. [ET] to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 1, 2, 24, 28 and 29 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft report.
Senator Larry W. Smith (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. My name is Larry Smith, senator from Quebec and chair of this committee.
I would now like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[English]
Senator Simons: Good evening. I’m Senator Paula Simons. I come from Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Quinn: Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator Wilson: Good evening, Duncan Wilson, British Columbia.
Senator Mohamed: Welcome, I’m Farah Mohamed from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Good evening. René Cormier from New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Lewis: Todd Lewis from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Good evening. Réjean Aucoin from Nova Scotia.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, senator from Ontario.
The Chair: I would like to welcome everyone here with us today, as well as those listening to us online on the Senate’s website, sencanada.ca.
We are meeting today to continue our study of the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 1, 2, 24, 28 and 29 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, implementation act No. 1.
Today, we will hear from witnesses specifically on Division 28, which relates to the Aeronautics Act.
With that, I would now like to introduce our panel of witnesses. From the National Airlines Council of Canada, Shannon Saunders, Director, Operations and Regulatory Affairs; and Jim Ferrier, Director, Public Policy. From the Air Transport Association of Canada, Julie Mailhot, President and Chief Executive Officer. From the Canadian UAV Association, Wei Li, Vice-President and Secretary-General, who is online with us.
Thank you all for joining us today. Witnesses will provide opening remarks of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by a question-and-answer session from senators. I will now invite Ms. Saunders to give her opening remarks.
Shannon Saunders, Director, Operations and Regulatory Affairs, National Airlines Council of Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My Name is Shannon Saunders, and I am joined here today by my colleague Jim Ferrier. We are appearing on behalf of the National Airlines Council of Canada, or NACC. Our association represents Canada’s largest passenger airlines, including Air Canada, WestJet, Air Transat and Jazz. Our members operate in every region of the country and are responsible for a significant amount of commercial air travel in Canada.
Canada’s aviation system is widely recognized as one of the safest in the world. That record is not accidental. It is the result of decades of collaboration between regulators, industry, employees and international partners, grounded in risk-based decision making and a strong safety culture.
Division 28 of Bill C-15 proposes a series of amendments intended to strengthen Canada’s aviation safety and security framework, modernize existing regulatory tools and enhance alignment with international standards. NACC broadly supports these objectives, and we appreciate the opportunity to share our perspective on how these changes can best advance safety while preserving predictability, transparency and trust in the system.
First, NACC strongly supports the proposed legislative protections for voluntarily shared safety data. This is a foundational issue for aviation safety in Canada.
Modern aviation safety systems depend on the free flow of information — reports from pilots, engineers, dispatchers and front-line employees who identify hazards before they result in accidents. These reports are most effective when individuals are confident that safety information they provide voluntarily will be used for learning and prevention, not punishment.
For several years, NACC and Transport Canada have jointly advocated for stronger statutory protection of voluntary safety data. The proposed amendments move Canada closer to international best practices by reinforcing a “just culture” approach consistent with ICAO standards. We view this as one of the most positive and consequential elements of Division 28.
Second, the bill advances regulatory modernization, including streamlined service of documents and expanded use of interim orders, to respond quickly to emerging safety or security risks or to implement international obligations.
In an increasingly dynamic operating environment, regulatory agility is important. The ability to respond rapidly to evolving risks can enhance safety outcomes and preserve Canada’s standing internationally. Alignment with global standards also helps Canadian operators avoid unnecessary scrutiny or operational disruption when operating abroad.
Although enforcement is an important element of regulatory compliance, aviation safety is best strengthened through proactive risk management rather than punitive measures. It will be important to ensure that regulatory obligations do not create unnecessary duplication or financial burden that diverts resources away from actual safety, fatigue and security risk mitigation.
Finally, we would highlight the importance of maintaining regulatory transparency and stakeholder engagement, particularly where certain documents or requirements may be exempt from the Statutory Instruments Act. Early engagement and clear guidance are critical to ensuring that operators can implement new requirements consistently and effectively.
In closing, NACC supports the overarching intent of Division 28, to strengthen aviation safety and security, modernize regulatory tools and align Canada with international best practices. At the same time, we would encourage the committee to consider how these amendments will positively contribute to aviation safety should this bill be passed.
It will be equally important to ensure the system remains transparent and focused on safety outcomes but does not add additional financial burdens on a sector that already faces significant financial obligations.
Thank you again, and we look forward to answering the committee’s questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Saunders. I will now invite Ms. Mailhot to give her opening remarks.
Julie Mailhot, President and Chief Executive Officer, Air Transport Association of Canada: Chair and honourable senators, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Julie Mailhot, President and CEO of the Air Transport Association of Canada, or ATAC. I am here representing a national membership that includes commercial carriers, regional and northern operators, flight training organizations, charter services, cargo operators and the many aviation businesses that support Canada’s air transportation system. Together, they provide essential connectivity across the country and play a critical role in Canada’s economy and community access.
Canada’s aviation sector is widely recognized for its strong safety record. That strength comes from years of collaboration between Transport Canada, operators, employees and international partners, using a risk-based approach and a long-standing culture of continuous improvement.
Division 28 of Bill C-15 proposes a series of updates to Canada’s aviation safety and security framework. ATAC supports the objective of strengthening the system, modernizing oversight tools and reinforcing alignment with international standards.
One of the most significant advancements is the long-awaited protection of safety information data voluntarily submitted. A strong safety culture depends on individuals and air operators feeling confident that they can report safety hazards openly and without fear of unintended consequences. These protections bring Canada closer to international best practices and reinforce the foundation of our safety system.
The bill also expands the use of interim orders and other regulatory tools that were used effectively during COVID times. We recognize the value of agility in responding to emerging safety or security concerns. At the same time, predictability and transparency remain essential for operators, particularly important for regional and northern carriers that are essential services and must plan well in advance for fleet, training and infrastructure requirements.
The amendments also introduce a substantial increase in administrative monetary penalties. While enforcement is an important component of regulatory oversight, Canada’s strong safety record has been built primarily on proactive risk management and collaboration with the regulator. Many Canadian air operators already navigate multiple overlapping requirements, including safety management systems, fatigue rules and potentially new security obligations, and it will be important to ensure that any additional expectations remain proportionate and do not divert resources away from core safety activities and cause unnecessary administrative burden.
Bill C-15 also raises the potential penalties associated with ministerial orders to levels that would be extremely challenging for many of ATAC’s small and mid-sized air operators to absorb. Should these orders be used in the future, it will be essential that compliance timelines reflect the time and planning required to adjust procedures, training programs, manuals or operational systems, particularly when regulatory approvals or capital investments are involved. We believe penalties and expectations should be scaled appropriately to an operator’s size and the complexity of the changes being required.
The proposed adjustments to vicarious liability align with established legal principles, including safeguards for actions outside the scope of employment and the availability of a due diligence defence. ATAC members remain committed to working collaboratively with Transport Canada to ensure that mandated changes enhance safety in a way that is practical and achievable across the industry.
We want to emphasize the importance of keeping operators involved when regulatory tools or requirements are updated. Under the usual process, changes go through structured steps that include advance publication, opportunities for feedback, impact analysis and legal review. When certain instruments fall outside that framework — such as some safety or security programs — they can be issued without those steps. This can leave operators with little time to adapt and may create unexpected compliance pressures. Clear communication and early engagement remain essential to ensure changes are practical and consistently implemented across the sector. ATAC, as the industry association, is committed to supporting air operators in engaging with the regulator.
Changes that affect manuals, training programs or oversight processes need to be accompanied by timely guidance with industry subject matter experts. Realistic transition periods are critical for operators of all sizes, especially those in remote and northern regions who face unique operational challenges.
Canada’s aviation community is diverse, from large scheduled carriers to small northern operators, flight training units and charter services. New requirements should be scalable so that compliance expectations reflect the size and complexity of each operation.
In closing, ATAC supports the overall intent of Division 28, strengthening safety, modernizing regulatory tools and ensuring Canada remains aligned with international standards. The protections for voluntary safety reporting represent a major positive step.
We encourage the committee to consider transparency, proportionality and industry engagement as these tools are implemented to ensure the framework remains effective and sustainable for operators across the country.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable senators. I’m at your disposal if you have any questions.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Mailhot. I will now invite Mr. Wei Li to present his opening remarks. Go ahead, sir.
Wei Li, Vice-President and Secretary-General, Canadian UAV Association: Thank you, chair and honourable senators. Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. I’m Wei Li, Vice-President of the Canadian UAV Association. I will start with my opening statement.
While RPAS Canada supports the safety objectives of Bill C-15, our testimony today focuses on a critical missing link: the absence of a robust industrial strategy to support the very sector being regulated.
Regulation does not exist in a vacuum. Every new compliance requirement in Bill C-15 — whether it is a safety management system, SMS, or increased administrative penalties — comes with a cost. For Canada to lead in the global drone economy, the government should move from a mindset of restricting to enabling.
The drone industry in Canada is primarily composed of innovative start-ups and SMEs. These companies face high R&D costs and a valley of death between prototyping and commercialization.
We urge the government to establish dedicated grant programs and tax credits specifically for the RPAS sector, similar to those found in the cleantech or automotive sectors. We need a drone innovation fund to help Canadian companies scale before they are outcompeted by foreign, state-subsidized entities.
The most effective way to support a new industry is to be its first customer. Currently, many government departments remain hesitant to integrate drone technology into their daily operations.
We propose a drone-first procurement policy. Government departments, from Agriculture and Agri-Food to Parks Canada and Public Safety, should be mandated to prioritize drone solutions for monitoring, management and emergency response. This not only improves public service efficiency but provides the domestic market with the anchor contracts needed for stability.
Safety is paramount, but overly prescriptive regulations can stifle growth.
We ask for a commitment that the implementation of Bill C-15 will include an economic impact assessment for all new drone‑related regulations. The government must ensure that the path to BVLOS — beyond visual line-of-sight — operations is clear, predictable and commercially viable for businesses of all sizes.
Senators, we have the talent, geography and technology to be a world leader. However, we cannot fly on a “safety-only” wing. We need the other wings — economic investment and procurement support — to truly take off. If we regulate the industry without funding its growth, we risk creating perfectly safe airspace where no Canadian drone companies are left to fly.
Thank you. That’s all from my end.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Li. We’ll now move on to questions from senators. I invite our deputy chair, Senator Dasko, to ask the first question.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
My first question is to help me understand the context of these changes. I’m trying to understand what has motivated the changes. Where are they coming from? Are they coming from serious issues we have in the system that have to be addressed? Have there been incidents? Have there been difficulties? Why are we dealing with this? Why do we have this here now at this point in time? Just give me, if you can, a bit of context and background as to why we’re dealing with these changes now. Anybody can answer.
Ms. Saunders: I’ll speak towards the voluntary data aspect. This is a long-standing principle in safety management systems. Safety management systems apply to air operators and other types of certificate holders. If you think in terms of the state, for Canada, there is what’s called the State Safety Program, which is essentially safety management for the entirety of Canada. These are requirements under ICAO that have been worked on for quite some time. The one aspect that we as air operators have been challenged by is being able to share our data with the regulator to work in lockstep to ensure that we’re addressing systemic-level safety risks that apply to the whole country. Right now, we can’t see what those risks are. For example, one of our operators may see a trend in a specific area, but they see that trend within the context of their organization. You don’t see whether or not that is systemically applicable to the totality of the system across Canada.
Furthermore, those risks that we identify with Canada are also analyzed by the state for Canada but also by ICAO. The input and the voluntary safety data that we extract and the fact that that is protected is very important to ensure that we are identifying those risks and mitigating them appropriately.
Senator Dasko: So you’re saying is we that had barriers before in sharing this information either internally and internationally?
Ms. Saunders: Exactly. It has been a long-standing concern, certainly one we’re all working towards, the regulator and industry as well.
Senator Dasko: That would be the basis of what you’re doing?
Ms. Saunders: Yes, absolutely. It’s a long-awaited amendment.
Senator Dasko: I’m going to read you something from background research that we’ve been given, and I want you to answer this.
In June 2023, Canada’s civil aviation oversight system was subject to an audit by the International Civil Aviation Organization. The audit focused on the effectiveness of Canada’s regulatory system and its alignment with international standards. Canada received a score of 65%, which is a significant drop from 95%.
This would obviously raise a question, and I wonder if you might answer what the rating was and why it went down. What were the issues here? Are these issues being resolved?
Ms. Saunders: I cannot speak on behalf of the regulator, but most certainly, that audit you’re speaking of is actually an assessment of the state or Canada’s ability to provide safety oversight. In no way does that reflect the safety of the air operators with regard to that. Certainly, it is a reflection of Canada’s capability to keep pace with ICAO’s standards and recommended practices.
Certainly, there has been a drop in the effective implementation score, without a doubt, but the SARPs, or Standards and Recommended Practices, promulgated by ICAO have changed significantly and there have been many more additional requirements imposed and Canada’s ability to keep pace with that needs improvement.
Senator Dasko: This traces to increasing standards that the system hadn’t met essentially?
Ms. Saunders: That’s correct.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Senator Lewis: I’ve got a question on the drones. It’s an emergent technology and, of course, this is trying to align with international standards.
Is Canada behind on some of the standards? How have other jurisdictions dealt with drones and emerging technology? Certainly, in my province, drones have a very interesting industrial use — if you want to call it that, for lack of a better phrase — be it forest fire mitigation or forest management, certain agriculture, the checking of cattle, something as simple as that, or even the spraying or checking of crops. There are many other uses for them, but that’s different from the recreational use you see in urban centres. Of course, there are lots of issues with that, proximity to airports and those kinds of things. Can you give examples of what other countries have done as we see this emerging technology and how to manage it?
Mr. Li: Of course. Thank you, senator, for the question. Based on my understanding, I would say drones are new technology, especially for Canada. We are not implementing as much area as we could. For example, in agriculture and agri‑food, there are a lot of examples all around the world, like in the States and in China. They use such technology to map the land, which you can optimize. Also, we plan for actual tests. It’s actually low cost and low labour. Let’s say, for example, agriculture is very compatible and very doable, so that’s the main focus we are trying to work on right now.
Senator Lewis: Do you see some of these new regulations not enabling that as we move forward? I think your example of topography mapping and so on is a perfect one for all of Canada. We have huge areas. Drones are made for surveying large portions and large areas very easily. Do you see these new regulations not enabling the use of that new technology as it emerges?
Mr. Li: I would say potentially, but moving to actual practice is a bit of a concern for us. Right now, we don’t see any super red flags for now.
Senator Lewis: Thank you.
Mr. Li: Thank you.
Senator Wilson: I want to ask you about the interim orders provision and what your views are on the use of the interim orders instead of the usual regulatory process. Can you touch on the consultation aspect of it?
Do you think there is sufficient provision for consultation with, for example, airlines in the use of these interim orders?
Ms. Mailhot: Yes. I do not want to say the bureaucracy, but when there is change, it takes time and sometimes we want Transport Canada to move faster. That is what we’re asking, to ensure they still engage with the operators. The operators are very involved and do a lot of the work in the background with engineers; 5G is an example right now. We’re working with them. We’re going to the OEMs. We help Transport Canada make decisions faster.
It is the same thing with the fatigue rules. Transport Canada worked with the operators. We worked out some of the potential solutions. It takes a long time. By being more agile, we have to ensure that they still do the consultation. That is what we’re asking for — transparency and engagement. We want to move faster. We will be right there alongside them, but we need to step it up a little bit.
Senator Wilson: Is your experience with Transport Canada with respect to engagement that, generally, you are successful in getting the level of engagement you want, or are there other issues we should be aware of?
Ms. Mailhot: It is. I do not want to speak for my colleagues but, in the end, it seems that when we hit the administrative part of it, everything is done. We all agree. We’ve done all of the homework, but it seems that it takes a bit of time to pass the last hurdle. We’re hoping with this new one, it will be a little bit faster to maybe give them the means to cross the finish line a little bit faster.
Senator Wilson: Thank you.
Senator Simons: Mr. Li, my first question is for you. Maybe you can answer something that I have been puzzling over for a while.
Mr. Li: Okay.
Senator Simons: In the section of this legislation that deals with drones, specifically section 7.341(d).1 prohibits any person from intentionally interfering with drone operations or with the duties of a drone craft crew member while the system is powered on.
I have been struggling to understand. Presumably, you do not want to sabotage the system while it is powered off either. I know, obviously, you did not draft the legislation. Can you offer, from your perspective as an expert in the world of drones, why you think the legislation would say that it is for when the drone is on? Are you concerned that somebody could still sabotage the drone while it is off?
Mr. Li: Sorry, can you repeat or rephrase it a little bit?
Senator Simons: There is a part of the law that says that there are penalties if you interfere with a drone while it is flying, powered on, or if you interfere with the crew. I can understand that. Obviously, when it is flying, it is more vulnerable.
Mr. Li: Yes.
Senator Simons: But the language says when it is powered on. Presumably, when it is powered off, you also shouldn’t be poking at it with a stick. Maybe I have answered my own question. Do you have any sense of why there would be a different rule for if it is off and if it is on?
Mr. Li: From my perspective, I would say assume that, once on, which means it is flying and of course, it is on, there is a regulation of aviation controlled by the government by specific standards. When you say it is off, I would assume that is the manufacturing side or — yes, it is a bit confusing to me as well for this on/off.
Senator Simons: Can a drone be powered on and not in the air? Presumably, it can be on and sitting on the ground or in your hand.
Mr. Li: Yes.
Senator Simons: Okay. I do not know. I think that this is an existential question that I will likely never answer until I start flying drones.
I have a question for Ms. Saunders. You spoke about the need to be able to have the data sets so that you can see patterns.
Ms. Saunders: Correct.
Senator Simons: Are you talking about patterns that might be caused by a mechanical malfunction in a certain type of aircraft or weather patterns that might be affecting safety? Talk to me about what you are looking for.
Ms. Saunders: It could be anything. Obviously, there are various disciplines within aviation. It could be a maintenance issue, perhaps, that multiple operators are seeing, and those things are reported voluntarily. There are other processes for that. That could be one example.
It could be something as simple as aircraft approaches, flying to certain airports that could aid in identifying specific issues with the air navigation system or practices and standard operating procedures with regard to the actual flying portion. There are a number of different, various scenarios that it could apply to.
Senator Simons: Could it apply to, I don’t know, migratory bird paths, weather systems or is it really more focused on the mechanics of the equipment?
Ms. Saunders: It is not necessarily just focused specifically on the mechanics of the equipment. It could be a specific safety concern that operators are seeing with one location, one aerodrome. It could be something with a specific type of aircraft that operators are coping with. Again, it could apply to a variety of various scenarios. I’m trying to think of other examples.
Ms. Mailhot: I can add.
Ms. Saunders: Please.
Ms. Mailhot: The birds, for example, absolutely. That is how we pick up certain risks at certain airports, certain times of the day or time of the year. Those seem to be reported fairly.
What we want to do with this new amendment is the risks that are more inherent to either training the person that somebody won’t report it because they think they might; so that is why it is very important for those. The ones with the birds, with the malfunction, they get reported for strong safety and they have to. All of the 705 carriers, the biggest ones, have a mandatory SMS system. They have to report it. That goes into the system.
It is the one that, if they land somewhere, they do not make an approach and they tend to land a little bit too fast or too high. Some pilots do report it, but some of them it is questionable. It is a grey area. Some of them will report it because they will think, for training, put it in our books so that when they redo training and use the simulator, they’ll see that at that airport, that runway, that time of the day. If it happens often, then they are going to tweak the training.
Sometimes when they’re tweaking the training, they have to go back to Transport Canada and say, “Hey, maybe that regulation we should move those minimums.” That is the full circle of analysis that we are happy to see, because it is going to protect the airline and the people. There is already a pretty good just culture out there, but if we could give them just a little bit more, “Hey, just report it.”
Senator Simons: Thank you. Those are helpful answers.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: I would like to pick up on a point the senator made. It was about 65% versus 95%. The International Civil Aviation Organization has been around since 1947. Its head office is in Montreal. When you identify weaknesses in the system and the organization notifies you that something is wrong, such as in 2023 or in an audit, I would have thought that would have been addressed fairly quickly. You said there was a lack of communication or that you couldn’t share the information. However, you didn’t explain why. What is currently missing in the system for communication to take place and that could have been resolved long before these regulations? Would that have been possible?
[English]
Ms. Saunders: Again, this is the capability of safety oversight for the regulator. I can speak on behalf of the airlines and our part in that. Then, obviously, when Transport Canada promulgates regulatory changes to keep pace with ICAO, then we comply with those requirements, but I can’t really speak on behalf of the regulator in terms of their safety oversight aspects.
[Translation]
Ms. Mailhot: If I may, this audit has nothing to do with the airlines. This is really an audit for Transport Canada and the country. We can’t judge why they are at 65%. However, I can tell you that this is partly why we would like the rules, procedures and changes to move more quickly. I think it should be better in the next audit. The airlines have a Transport Canada audit, a program validation inspection, or PVI, which is completely different, but it is about their processes. So the airlines are like a —
[English]
It is one step removed from that audit. It’s very hard for us to comment why they only cut 65.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Can there be things that affect you in the audit that you will have to put in place, even if you don’t know the source?
Ms. Mailhot: Absolutely.
Senator Aucoin: And you have no way of providing feedback or suggestions?
Ms. Mailhot: We could, yes.
Senator Aucoin: But you don’t know if they will be taken into account?
Ms. Mailhot: Exactly. We don’t know. However, I believe that these requests from Transport Canada must certainly be related to the audit. I’m sure that if it passes and the changes are made, they can check it off and say that’s it for Canada.
Senator Aucoin: If I understand correctly, you would like that to be the case, but you have no proof that it will be, that everything will be included, and that, on the basis of these regulations, you will be able to align, talk to each other and resolve the weaknesses in the system in order to improve Canadian safety in relation to international standards?
Ms. Mailhot: Exactly.
[English]
Ms. Saunders: Can I add to that?
As air operators in Canada, we are very mature operators. We have mature Safety Management Systems. We have quality management systems. We are ensuring compliance with the Canadian Aviation Regulations. Our operators from the NACC end are also subject to audits of our international alignment aspect. Our operators do very much look at the ICAO standards and recommended practices and attempt to ensure we are complying with those as well.
We are working with Transport Canada. We do understand that Transport Canada is making a significant amount of effort to bring Canada into alignment with that. Of course, we are partners in that aspect as well.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: The maximum fines have been increased, so I imagine that will affect your clients. How are your clients and your members reacting? Can you comment on that?
Ms. Mailhot: I know that when Mr. Meunier was here, a senator asked him that. I have heard that he will have more details. We are wondering what those details are. At $1.5 million, if it’s a northern airline or a regional airline, that’s it. We want to know the details. If there is a recurring issue and the fine is not high enough, it won’t make them think. It cannot be something related to safety, because I hope it wouldn’t be just as a result of fines. Airlines have an operating certificate. We have to revoke their operating certificate if there is a safety issue. It cannot be just little things that don’t lead to an accident or an incident. I would like to know what could be up to $1.5 million.
[English]
Senator Quinn: Thank you for being here this evening. Thank you for an interesting presentation by each of you at the beginning of the evening.
There has been a lot of discussion about how enforcement goes and whatnot. How is enforcement going now? Do you see weaknesses on the enforcement side of the house with the current regs? I ask that because with new regs coming in, if we have some observations now, how does it work with new stuff coming in? There will be additional things to do. How is the enforcement work going?
Ms. Mailhot: For our operators, there have been no issues. Enforcement exists, and correctly so. That is why I was a little bit surprised to see that increase because there is no history of enforcement or oversight not working.
Ms. Saunders: With regard to the Safety Management System specifically, certainly, Transport Canada currently has a limitation in its ability to hold an operator to anything that is outside of Transport Canada’s approved manuals. If it is an operator’s internal policies and procedures and whatnot, Transport Canada is not currently able to enforce those. That is something we actually do support. If there is a concern and non‑compliance with internal policies and procedures, Transport Canada should have the ability to enforce that and issue a fine.
Senator Quinn: Why do you think they don’t have that ability?
Ms. Saunders: Again, it is lacking the actual legal provisions in the Aeronautics Act, which is what these amendments are designed to address.
Senator Quinn: I ask that because in other sectors of transportation, other modes of transportation have talked about concerns having the right people in Transport Canada. Whether it’s in shipping, trucking or rail, they talk about concerns with Transport Canada being able to respond.
Ms. Saunders: Right.
Senator Quinn: Like everything, it is getting harder to have the right skill sets and competencies. What I have heard you say raises that in my mind.
It sounds as if we have a bit of an issue. They are not responding quickly enough because they don’t have the right people with the right background and the right knowledge to be able to respond in a timely way. Imagine, we’re talking slowness in the transportation sector. It’s kind of worrisome.
Ms. Saunders: They do need the actual legal ability to do so. These amendments, as promulgated for the Aeronautics Act, will actually give them the capability to be able to address those.
Senator Quinn: Okay.
Ms. Mailhot: I would like to add something. For my operators, it’s a little bit different. All of the airlines have manuals that are approved by Transport Canada, like standard operating procedures. They are very strict and there are rules, but when they say they want to look at the ones that are not regulated by them, I would like to know what it is. If you take an operator who works in Nunavut or a small regional airline, they might have different requirements.
I would not support them by saying we’re going to look at this and decide on everything. I’m not too sure what they mean by that. You need to take into account the complexity of our carriers because there are many airlines in Canada other than the major four that have very specific needs. They are the link for medical and supplies. So for any kind of regulation that is not currently there, we would have to talk to the carrier to see what the impact is because it could be major.
Senator Quinn: Senator Dasko made the observation about 95% to 65% in terms of our score. That often comes down to the inability to respond to international agreements and putting the right things in place, which often comes down to having the right people in the positions to do that work.
That leads to my next question. I can’t remember which of our witnesses talked about things being developed. Regulations and operational procedures are developed, et cetera. If there is something that is challenging for a department to respond to, should they look at doing something instead of bringing it to you after the fact? Here, we’ve developed something — should they not be tapping into the experience and knowledge that you folks, your organizations and members have to get them involved at the front end of developing things so that when it is developed, there’s a greater understanding?
You have the experience; that is what I’m trying to get at. Is that something we should be thinking about?
Ms. Saunders: Transport Canada does consult.
Senator Quinn: Is there any chance of getting you involved in saying here are the things we need to do?
Ms. Saunders: Yes. We consider ourselves partners with Transport Canada. It’s important they consult often and throughout the entirety of the process of regulatory development. It shouldn’t just stop after a notice of proposed amendment. It should go through the lifecycle. After those regulations are implemented, there should be a lessons-learned process to evaluate those and to find out how it’s actually working.
Senator Quinn: There’s nothing in this division that is a surprise to you folks?
Ms. Saunders: No.
Senator Quinn: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: My questions have been answered, but I still have a question for Ms. Mailhot about regional carriers.
I come from northern New Brunswick, where we have a new carrier that replaced Air Canada. It’s a private carrier. There are questions about safety with this type of carrier. Are they as safe as the larger carriers? For example, you don’t have to go through security to board the plane.
Let me come back to the amounts of the proposed fines. First, is the same level of safety guaranteed? Do the changes made here also help regional carriers in more remote regions? Of course, northern New Brunswick is not a remote area — I will be trashed if I say that. The amounts involved raise a number of questions. I’m thinking that there must be major problems. What can you tell me about that?
Ms. Mailhot: Yes, they are just as safe. To operate in Canada, you need a Transport Canada operating certificate. To get that certificate, it’s all the same questions, the same manuals and the same operations, even if it’s a different type of aircraft.
There is nothing that can help in this regard. That’s a minor drawback. For Transport Canada, when we talk about large carriers, my only fear is that this will create an administrative burden for small carriers.
As to the amounts, we would have to see what that $1.5 million is equivalent to. I can’t comment on that until I see the catalogue with the related costs and offences. It’s definitely a big increase. But is there a history? It is surprising. We don’t have a history of offences with recurring issues.
Senator Cormier: So you’re saying you weren’t informed of these changes?
Ms. Mailhot: No.
Senator Cormier: Were you consulted on them?
Ms. Mailhot: No.
Senator Cormier: Our committee can make observations. If you could suggest one observation for us to include in our report, what would it be?
Ms. Mailhot: It has to be in proportion to the size of the airline. We have to remember that the airlines, even the largest ones, do not make the most money that way.
Senator Cormier: Are you referring to the amounts?
Ms. Mailhot: Yes. It has to be scalable, it has to be related to the operation and it has to make sense for the operation. We wouldn’t want Transport Canada to issue a fine that means that the airline . . . We have a great deal of difficulty getting airlines in the regions and in the North. They are a lifeline for medical issues. They are essential services.
Senator Cormier: Ms. Saunders, did you want to add anything?
[English]
Ms. Saunders: Yes, I actually would. My understanding of that increase is that it would be in a very severe circumstance, the $1.5 million for an organization. Transport Canada has a graduated enforcement policy. What’s proposed in the Aeronautics Act is the upper maximum limit. They would and do work with operators, so if there was repeated non-compliance, it might get to that point. From what I understand, that is not the case. Transport Canada is not going to fine somebody $1.5 million for an offence. They work with operators.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: You spoke earlier about the challenges in obtaining reports in certain circumstances. You were talking about a pilot, for example. How do you monitor that kind of thing if there is no report and there is a safety issue? How do you ensure that is done?
Ms. Mailhot: When issues are not reported, that is because they do not reach the threshold for the air traffic controller to report them or they are captured by the aircraft recording system. If a pilot lands too hard, even if he says nothing, the plane records it and sends it for maintenance. There are some things they can’t hide from us, even if they don’t say anything.
Nowadays, the most sophisticated aircraft record all the data. That’s what we’re working on with the Canadian Commercial Aviation Safety Team, or CCAST. It is a private organization, though. All the data is entered and anonymized for all participating carriers. The system indicates that in Toronto, on runway 6, there were a few landings that were a bit too fast. We do not know which airlines are involved. We then reach out to the companies, tell them that a risk has been identified and that we will report it to NAV Canada. While the issues are not reported to us, we are starting to know certain things through the aircraft recording systems. We do nonetheless want people to get into the habit of reporting to us. Most of the time, it is something minor that needs to change in terms of training, or one more practice is needed.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Lewis: As we talk about transparency, public trust and so on, when there are problems — a little bit to your point — will these regulations make it more transparent for the public when they understand there is a problem or even in the event of an accident? A good example was the crash in Toronto last year. It has been a year as of next month, and it has been pretty quiet about what happened there and everything else. The public wants to know what caused that and what steps have been taken to make sure it doesn’t happen again and those kinds of things. Certainly, it seems like in the United States, a lot more information comes a lot quicker when there’s an accident, a crash or a big problem.
We talk about the fact that it’s on your industry to report, but will these regulations make Transport Canada a little bit more public and hold their feet to the fire when there are problems so that they’re a little more transparent than they have been?
Ms. Mailhot: I don’t know if it’s going to be more transparent, but when an accident happens in a country, with the International Civil Aviation Organization, or ICAO, they need to have a preliminary report within a month and the report within a year. Those are the kinds of things that if you don’t do them, you might lose points in the audit.
Senator Lewis: So aligning with international standards will help?
Ms. Mailhot: Exactly.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. If there isn’t anything else from our senators, I would like to thank our guests for coming in. Of course, Mr. Li, thank you very much for your time. We wish you the best in your function, moving forward.
(The committee continued in camera.)