Evidence of meeting #10 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was sms.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
That's what I'm presuming. You're saying the 60 ships are flagged Canadian.
11:45 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport
They are flagged in Canada, yes.
11:45 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport
Oh, no, it's not 100%.
Do we have those figures?
We can't answer that at this point in time. We could research it.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
We would appreciate that information, to get an idea of how far-reaching the program is in terms of penetrating the potential...particularly on the international side, which has the larger companies you mentioned, which I presume are perhaps more easy to regulate.
11:45 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport
But actually, those companies that are Canadian and that would have flagged their vessels in other countries, such as in the Bahamas, for instance, would meet the same requirement for safety management systems, because this is a requirement of IMO. Over 150 countries are members of IMO and they are all subject to the same IMO standards and obligations.
So if a Canadian company has a ship weighing over 500 gross tonnes, which is a big, big ship, and they decide to register it in the Bahamas' register--they have a big register there--they have to comply with the same regulation. Our Canadian regulatory framework for those ships is copied, if you want, on the IMO standards.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
With regard to rail, you talked about the problems that CN had in 2005 and you said that has improved in 2006. What was the commonality--if there was a commonality--in the problems that existed? Was it length of train? Was it condition of track?
11:45 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport
I'll let Luc answer that.
11:45 a.m.
Luc Bourdon Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
We had a total of 53 inspectors on CN for a month. We looked at over 3,000 boxcars, 230 locomotives, over 900 crossings, 156 warning systems, and 2,000 miles of track. We made 386 observations for operating practices. There were several deficiencies, at different levels, that were addressed by CN.
For instance, we found a rate of about 21% for defects on cars. Those cars may not have led to a derailment; they were at several levels. We found a rate of defect of about 53% on locomotives, which also would range from something very minor.... We didn't find anything during those inspections that could cause a derailment, but we felt enough concern to ask CN to address all those problems. It was the same thing with track; there were some deficiencies that were fixed. Between us and CN, there were 36 slow orders that were imposed throughout the system.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
I guess in British Columbia--I'm thinking of the Cheakamus and the others--one of the problems was the length of the trains and perhaps some of the crews who were not familiar with the geographic terrain.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Grégoire.
I would like to talk about aviation safety. In your presentation, you say that accidents are very costly. Nowhere do you mention the human aspect of accidents. We represent the people, and their feelings about aviation safety are not necessary linked to the loss of an aircraft or to material damage, but more so to the loss of their loved ones who were on board.
It is astonishing that that was not mentioned in your presentation, where you say:
In aviation, the new safety policy makes the person who has the power to impose a new policy, lead its implementation, fund it and sustain it, accountable for the safety performance of the civil aviation organization.
Focusing on the profitability of airlines is not a bad thing in itself, but the human dimension must be dealt with. Does the fact that there seems to be little concern about this dimension have any influence on the study that you are currently conducting on the ratio of flight attendants, which is currently being discussed in your organization and on which we have still not yet received a report? Do you take into account the human dimension in your assessment of corporate profitability, like during the accident in Toronto last year, where it was acknowledged that, thanks to the flight attendants, the evacuation took place safely and without any personal injury to the passengers?
11:50 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport
That is a very good question and I'm sorry if I gave the impression that the human aspect was not important. Our work is to save lives and improve safety. That is why we are proposing safety management systems.
The human aspect is a different one. We identified key elements that enabled us to improve air transportation safety over the last 60 or 70 years. Several technical improvements were made. In the early 1960s, we improved the reliability of plane engines by introducing jet powered airplanes. This was followed by some very significant improvements in electronics and air navigation. We did almost everything possible in terms of technical improvements in order to further reduce the number of accidents.
Safety management systems focus primarily on people. What can people, who intervene at various levels within an airline, do to improve safety? How can we improve communications between airline employees, who are all safety and aviation professionals? What can we do to enable them to report on what is not working within the company, without running the risk of being punished by that company? These are people, professionals, who are raising shortcomings and encouraging the business to examine them and do something to resolve them.
The whole philosophy of the SMS is based on people. I'm very pleased that you raised that question.
Allow me to respond to your question about flight attendants. Transport Canada would not make any recommendations that would decrease aviation safety. We demonstrated that in 2001 when we rejected a proposal concerning flight attendants because we were convinced that that would lead to a decrease in safety.
The proposal we have before us today is not the same as the one we had in 2001. We are sure that the level of safety under a 1 to 50 ratio would be equivalent to that under current regulations that provides for a 1 to 40 ratio.
I could provide you with more details but I don't want to take time away from questioning.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
We will discuss this in greater depth at another time.
Bill C-11, which has received first reading, deals partly with rail safety. How will it improve safety?
11:55 a.m.
An hon. member
Bill C-11? That will most certainly not affect safety.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
This is a bill that amends, among others, the Railway Safety Act. It was tabled by the government on May 4, 2006 and we will be undertakings its consideration in the very near future. I simply wanted to hear your opinion.
11:55 a.m.
An hon. member
You have it.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
11:55 a.m.
An hon. member
Yes, its merely a title, because in the end, safety will not be improved.
11:55 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport
You won't find safety proposals in it.
11:55 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport
Yes, that is right.
