Bill C-7 and Why the Public Should be Aware

[Widow]

Bill C-7 and Why the Public Should be Aware
By Kirsten Stevens


After my husband drowned following a survivable floatplane accident in the spring of 2005, leaving me alone to care for our newborn baby and two young children, I needed answers in order to find peace and move on. More than three years later, there are still no answers. Although he and the four other men on board that day were working, there has been no accident report and no occupational health and safety investigation. (Please see this link for an explanation: http://www3.telus.net/public/t9232724/h ... Deaths.htm) There have been no recommendations aimed at preventing similarly caused accidents and fatalities. There has been no report from the coroner. There has been no closure. (See: http://www.questforjustice.ca for more information)

Dissatisfied by the investigations and communication, as well as obfuscation of information received from government officials, I began a quest to learn about the aviation industry in order to find out how this could have happened and what needed to change so that it could never happen again.

What I have learned frightens me.

Transport Canada would have us believe that we have one of the “safest aviation systems in the world”. Of course, that’s what the United States of America says too, and we all know what just happened there when FAA officials blew the whistle and hundreds of thousands of passengers were stranded due to safety concerns (See: http://www.publicvalues.ca/ViewArticle. ... cle/413085 ). The statistics also do not bear this out (See: http://www3.telus.net/public/t9232724/i ... istics.mht). While airlines operations continue to appear relatively safe due to the availability of extensive technologies and lobby groups such as unions and professional associations, the same cannot be said for the rest of the industry.

The majority of air traffic in Canada is carried out by industry classes such as air taxi, aerial work, medical evacuation, flight training, cargo flights, private flights, etc. Given the size and diverse nature of both weather and terrain in this country, as well as the fact that most pilots build hours either instructing (with little or no “real world” experience) or working “the bush” - it is also the sector most “at risk”. The remote locations of many of these operations further complicate the ability to perform regulatory oversight. These types of operations often transport workers from other industries, as well as tourists, thereby increasing the danger to the Canadian public.

Bill C-7, an Act to Amend the Aeronautics Act has been making it’s way through Parliament (first introduced as Bill C-62, then as Bill C-6, and now as Bill C-7) since 2005 (see: http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/index.a ... 3&List=toc ), and may soon be up for review by the Standing Senate Committee on Transportation and Communication. While the Bill has met with a great deal of criticism during House Committee meetings and in the House of Commons, Transport Canada has been implementing the critical component, “Safety Management Systems” (SMS) for several years, and without Parliamentary approval.

SMS is a system by which a company or operator is responsible for reporting and managing safety issues. While in essence, SMS is a good thing, for it to work it is critical that regulatory oversight is constant and effective, or there is the potential for disaster. Clearly, a company or operator is not going to implicate itself in any wrong-doing. It is therefore necessary that the regulator (Transport Canada) is consistent in its inspection and enforcement obligations, listening and responding to complaints from pilots and others, and in following recommendations made by the Transportation Safety Board. Unfortunately, there is considerable evidence that Transport Canada is neglecting these responsibilities, at the cost of human lives. A clear indicator is the recent criminal prosecution and verdict of guilt for the negligence of a pilot in a fatal accident, while the operator has not been held accountable (See: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/200 ... 2C0124.asp and http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... fel_080320 ). Further evidence is available upon request to those with an interest in doing an investigative piece.

SMS has already been introduced to the Rail sector, apparently with the same lack of regulatory oversight, and with dire consequences. (Refer to the ongoing parliamentary inquiry into Rail Safety http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/434520 ).

The Auditor General recently released a report on Transport’s oversight of air safety (see: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/Engli ... .html#hd3d ). The findings make it clear that Transport has not been effective in its risk management of SMS implementation. Other critics of Transport Canada oversight and the relationship to SMS include Justice Virgil Moshansky (http://www.buksa.com/halifax/docs/H5/H5 ... hansky.pdf ), the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Teamsters Canada, the Canada Safety Council and the Canadian Federal Pilots Association (representing the Transport Canada Civil Aviation inspectorate). The Canadian Association of Journalists nominated Transport Canada for its Secrecy Award the second year running, charging that the Bill will cause “a veil of secrecy (to) fall over all information reported by airlines about performance, safety violations, aviation safety problems and their resolution”.

Transport Canada has been found civilly liable for inadequate oversight of aviation operations and has quietly settled on a number of occasions. They have most recently been named as a defendant in a Statement of Claim filed by Air France in the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice (http://www.thespec.com/News/CanadaWorld/article/379979 ). In the opinion of many, SMS is being used for the purpose of further reducing costs and deflecting liability from the regulator, rather than improving the safety of our skies.

Justice Moshansky and many other industry experts continue to contend that a major review of the state of aviation safety in Canada and the impact of Bill C-7 should be performed by a Commission of Inquiry.

I happen to agree. If you value your safety and the safety of your loved ones, so should you.

[xsbank]

Excellent post, Kirsten - seems that unless we owe them money or we are an object of enforcement, they ignore us. They would prefer that we just quietly went about our business, crashed silently in the woods and didn't bother them (if an aircraft crashes in the woods, and there is nobody there to hear it, does it make a noise? No.).

And, of course, 'pilot error' solves so many problems, simplifies the paperwork and nobody has to leave the office or get their feet wet.

[fgrimes]

so ......... what's the solution?

[Cat Driver]

so ......... what's the solution?

A house cleaning at the top level of TCCA management is the only way to bring about change.

That is very unlikely to happen.

So the industry will just continue to get by like it is doing now.

Remember when you hear the claim that Canadaian Aviation is one of the safest and best regulated in the world the claim is being made by a politician, how many of them do you trust?

[Widow]

Stop being such a fatalist Cat.

[Cat Driver]

widow, I am not a fatalist I am only commenting on the curve I have seen over the last 55 years in the business.....it has curved downward.

But cheer up, maybe we can get rid of some of the problems at the top and then the curve can start upward.

If nothing else you and I live in the worst managed region in Canada....if we could get rid of some of our top management we might win that Canadian safety award.

[Widow]

Educate, proliferate, consummate.

Let's get 'er done

The Bill is on the list for tomorrow.

[Commonwealth]

A house cleaning at the top level of TCCA management is the only way to bring about change.

As satisfying as this may be I think for every snake that gets his head cut off, there are ten more that spring up in its place.

CW

[Widow]

A good reason for the establishment of an unbiased body for complaints ... an ombudsman? If we can force an inquiry, as Moshansky has suggested, this is likely something that would have to be considered.

[fgrimes]

an ombudsman would be a start

[Cat Driver]

an ombudsman would be a start

I'll accept the position.

[Carrier]

Quotes: “A good reason for the establishment of an unbiased body for complaints ... an ombudsman?”
“an ombudsman would be a start”
“I'll accept the position.” (Cat Driver, I am not sure if you are serious or being sarcastic.)

An incredibly naive suggestion! Widow and Cat Driver, I agree with most of what you have put forward in many posts and am grateful for your efforts. I too am very upset with the way I am treated by our different levels of government. However, I am surprised you two should suggest an Ombudsman after your own experiences regarding crooked government employees covering up for each other and being obstructive. What makes you believe that one more highly paid government official, with supporting staff, is the answer to government corruption, incompetence and indifference?

Who pays the Ombudsman? Like any other employee an Ombudsman is not going to bite the hand that feeds him. An Ombudsman will always favour the government or whoever he works for. He will ensure that a sufficient proportion of his decisions will favour the government, regardless of the merits of individual cases. Since it is usually only severely impacted “customers” who go to the trouble of filing a complaint it is reasonable to assume that most complaints have merit and that if an Ombudsman maintains a decision ratio of 50% then nearly half of the cases that have real merit are arbitrarily and unjustly dismissed. This ratio ensures that after his term as Ombudsman he will be in line for other government jobs, such as Chair of this and on the Board of that, etc. Once these people are on the gravy train you can be sure that they will not do anything that might remove their snouts from the tax trough.

I have personal experience of being on the wrong end of a biased Ombudsman’s decision. Many years ago I received disgraceful treatment from part of the government of Ontario. I involved the Ombudsman of Ontario early on in the process in an attempt to obtain reasonable service and eventually submitted a claim for the substantial losses that I had incurred. Right from the start of their involvement the Ombudsman’s staff were lied to and obstructed by the delinquent department. This is confirmed in writing in several instances. I have a letter written by an Ombudsman investigator to the head of the department pointing out that the investigator had written SIX times previously and still not received the requested information. If this was the level of obstruction that the Ombudsman’s staff received then you can imagine what sort of “service” I as an ordinary member of the public received! Despite all of this the crooked Ombudswoman of Ontario decided there was no wrongdoing by the government department and dismissed my claim for compensation.

An Ombudsman is a red herring put there to (1) deflect criticism from the Ombudsman’s employer (usually some level of government) and (2) provide at taxpayers’ expense another high paying sinecure for some politician’s crony.

Like Widow and Cat Driver I do not have the limitless resources to take on a government to enforce judgement so I am also unable to process my claim further. I can indulge in the occasional guerilla action from time to time but am unable to make any change. Is there any real answer? No! A nation gets the government it deserves. The majority of Canadians are so subservient that they deserve this level of abuse. The unfortunate outcome is that those few who really want decent service and strive for change are unable to make progress because of the attitude of the majority. Thus the elected and unelected professional seat warmers (politicians and bureaucrats) continue on their gold-plated way at taxpayers’ expense.

[Cat Driver]

I withdraw my offer to be an Ombudsman.

Thank you carrier for jolting me back to reality, you are 110% correct and I just got carried away and didn't think about what an ombudsman really is.

Now if there was a position that was completely outside of the government job description where you only answered to a group of aviation people with no connection to the government zoo then that would be worth while trying.

The job would have to be for a set time period with no chance to double dip after you finished.....that would keep a lot of people out for sure.

[Widow]

Great post Carrier. My own experience with the BC Ombudsman of Justice has been similar. I filed two formal complaints early in 2007 - one against the BC Coroner's Service and the other against Worksafe BC.

In the case of Worksafe BC, I was trying to find out what was going on with the OH&S investigation into my husbands death. After six months back and forth, we finally got to the bottom of it ... it wasn't Worksafe's responsibility (but Transports - federal) and thus the Ombudsman washed their hands of further involvement.

In the case of the BC Coroner Service, I had been writing, telephoning, emailing, etc., for a year without so much as an acknowledgement of my attempts at contact. In this case, it seems the Ombudsman had similar problems, because it was almost a full year of "we're working on it" before I finally received contact and explanation from the Coroner. Good enough for the Ombudsman.

However, if, as you say, the Ombudsman produces a decision ratio of 50% that are satisfactory to all parties, then that is still 100% more satisfactory than what currently happens - as no option for resolution currently exists.