Transport Committee on Feb. 14th, 2007

[Art LaFlamme]

The act is quite broad in its language and we leave it to the wisdom of you legislators with respect to how broad that is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. What I'm hearing here at the table are two different perspectives.

The word that has popped up a number of times is the word “self-regulation”. I confess, I used it at our last meeting when we had Transport Canada officials present here. I remember Mr. Preuss of Transport Canada actually becoming somewhat agitated and jumping into the fray, saying this is not self-regulation, that this is taking an existing regulatory process that is among the safest in the world and superimposing upon that an SMS system, which makes the system even more robust.

Mr. Adamus, am I correct in characterizing your understanding of it?

[Capt Dan Adamus]

Yes, absolutely. When we talk about security in the aviation industry, I guess I could refer to it as different layers of security. SMS is just another layer of safety. It's an add-on; it's a bonus. It's going to identify problems that wouldn't normally be identified under the old practices.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Again, I will refer back to Mr. Jeanes' testimony. He mentioned that often it takes an accident before we actually improve safety within the industry. It seems to me that SMS actually allows us to improve safety without waiting for accidents to happen. We actually engage the employees within the industry to identify problems without fear of retribution. They have immunity and they have confidentiality available to them.

I suppose my question leads to this. You've had experience with SMS systems, as have some of your members. You mentioned some airlines, both in Canada and the United States, that have already implemented SMS, superimposed upon existing regulatory structures. What has the experience been with those airlines?

[Capt Dan Adamus]

I mentioned earlier that it's all positive so far. We have not heard of any negative feedback.

You brought up a good point, and I actually wrote down in my notes, when Mr. Jeanes was speaking, about getting data from accidents. That's exactly what SMS does. It gets data, but luckily it's not from an accident; it's just from an incident or something that has happened out of the regular routine.

We take that data, we analyse it, and we say, how can we make it better, safer? That's when we make changes, and that would not normally happen without an SMS in place. How else would you collect the data? We don't always want to wait for an accident.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I will follow up on that. We've heard it suggested at this table that the number of inspections or inspectors has gone down in recent years. You already said you're not aware of that being the case. Unfortunately, Transport Canada isn't available right now to provide additional testimony.

Mr. Jeanes, are you aware of the number of inspections declining in recent years?

[David Jeanes]

We certainly don't monitor the number of inspectors in Transport Canada. Our information comes from sources such as Justice Moshansky's talk last September.

I'd like to say again that we're not coming up with these ideas. I would like to directly quote from his paper, where he stated:

I now understand that senior transport officials have publicly conceded that lack of funding, again, is behind the current promotion of the Safety Management System concept, which on the face of it anticipates at least a measure of self-regulation by the carriers themselves.

That is a perception of Justice Moshansky. We see that kind of thing and we consider it ourselves.

We have certainly benefited from our participation in a consultation group like CARAC, from seeing, for example, the daily occurrence reports, where even small incidents were regularly made known within the industry so that you could see trends happening.

Then, a couple of years ago, the distribution of that kind of information was cut back because of concerns that the information might be confidential, might be misused, might be prejudicial to carriers, and so on.

We have certainly never abused having that kind of information. It made it possible for us to do exactly the kind of thing you're describing as a benefit of SMS, which is having the actual employees and the employees charged with safety responsibilities learning from small incidents, to avoid big incidents. That's a part of the culture of openness that we think must be continued.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

But I didn't read into Justice Moshansky's comment that the number of inspections had in fact gone down. It just raised a concern about the fact that due to funding pressures SMS was looked to as a possibility.

[David Jeanes]

Yes, but also it has been observed there are impending retirements of large numbers of qualified people in the inspection establishment.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

But those are impending?

[David Jeanes]

Yes, that's correct.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

It's not necessarily a case of current reductions in inspections?

[David Jeanes]

That's correct, yes.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Okay. I'm looking forward to hearing Justice Moshansky, because he will have a chance to explain his comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It's our last round.

Mr. Laframboise, one last go.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want my Conservative colleagues to understand me clearly. I was listening to Mr. Fast and the others. I think we can say that the safety management system can constitute an additional safety element, provided we can properly oversee the system.

As you said a little earlier, we need oversight. When I questioned you, you told me that the way the inspectors work was going to change. They'll no longer conduct inspections as in the past; they won't conduct any more detailed technical inspections in the traditional way. That troubles me a little.

I want my Conservative colleagues to understand clearly. If we no longer rely on the public service, if we no longer have the expertise here, when a problem arises, a systematic inspection will have to be conducted, as you said. If we no longer have the staff to do it, we're going to direct a private firm to do it.

We must ensure all that so that safety is even better. If we let the industry do things and don't ensure inspections are done, we risk having a safety problem. That's the problem. I believe that the other witnesses appearing before us, including the inspectors who will be coming to meet with us, will say that. We could also invite the Transport Canada representatives again; I agree with my colleagues.

In my view, until we have made sure we have the staff to intervene, who are able to conduct an inspection, that's fine with me. However, if the inspectors become merely checkers and no longer have the qualifications because they haven't been trained to conduct technical inspections, there will be a problem. I also think you'll have a problem.

It's good that you trust everyone and yourselves, but, as I told you earlier, a number of companies will enter the market and a number of them will close their doors. We risk having safety problems with those kinds of companies. That won't be the case of a reliable, well-established company. So we have to oversee all that.

I hope you'll agree with me that we first need to ensure we have an oversight system that meets users' expectations.

[Capt Dan Adamus]

Thank you, Mr. Laframboise.

Absolutely, we need to maintain oversight of the company's safety management system, as well as regular inspections. As to your comment about new inspectors coming in and not being qualified, that's something to be directed at Transport Canada. We have full confidence that anybody they hire has been trained properly and will do the inspections correctly.

You referred to established airlines, which are safe, and that's not your main concern, but possibly the newer airlines that come in. If I were in Transport Canada, I would suggest that a new airline probably has even more oversight. They probably take a look at them even more. That's a question for Transport Canada officials, but I would guess that's the way it works right now. They would be required to have an SMS system in place before they got an operating certificate and there would be inspections. Again, I have full confidence in the system. I have repeated many times, and will continue to say, that it's just another layer to improve safety.

Pilots are perfectionists; they want everything done absolutely right. I can assure you that if they report something and a company doesn't follow through with the SMS program, they will report it in a second—guaranteed—and that will get through and put their program in jeopardy. So I can assure you there won't be any holes in the system; it will work, and Transport Canada will know if there's a problem with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do have a couple of comments to make before I come back to questions. We certainly appreciate your coming here today, because you provide an interesting perspective, but the background to this is comments made by the government itself. The ADM said on April 25, 2006: “There must (be) a willingness on the part of the regulator”—that's Transport Canada—“to step back from involvement in the day-to-day activities of the company in favour of allowing organizations to manage their activities and related hazards and risks themselves.” In wanting to allow organizations to manage their own risks or hazards, there's a clear intent of the government not to push for an extra layer of safety and security, but rather to step back essentially from involvement. That's our concern, and when we look at the lack of planning around providing for inspectors and providing for the attrition rate, there are some real concerns that come up around this legislation.

Last year, as I'm sure you are aware, The Toronto Star and The Hamilton Spectator did a really terrific series of articles on mechanics within Air Canada Jazz who had raised safety concerns that had not been dealt with internally, and those mechanics had gone public and were suspended. So I think the issue raised is a clear one, that it is possible in a system like this where there isn't the foundation for a carrier to try to cut corners. We would want to ensure we prevent that.

So coming back to all the examples we've cited in marine safety and railway safety, and in Australia and the United Kingdom, have you covered off within this legislation all of the weakness that have transpired in previous examples of SMS? Can any of you three say with complete and absolute assurance that you believe all the bases have been covered, or do we really need to get into this legislation and see if we can plug holes or gaps?

I'll start with Mr. Jeanes, because you've raised a number of concerns you have with the legislation. You did say you were in favour of it, and I'm not quite sure why, because the concerns you raised are significant ones.

[David Jeanes]

I think with respect to SMS, we certainly recognize that introducing a corporate culture of safety is very important. The concept of a safety department and of a chief safety officer, and of the visibility of safety going right to the senior management level, is very important and can provide the kind of proactive improvement of safety Mr. Fast referred to. But it is always going to be subject to the bottom line, and ours is just a caution that Transport Canada not relinquish its ability to provide sufficient surveillance that these SMS processes are working. You would no longer have Transport Canada inspectors doing every job that can perhaps be done better by the airlines with their own employees, but Transport Canada would still have the ability, either on a spot-check basis or by auditing, to know that the processes themselves were effective by talking to the safety employees and the chief safety officer in each company, to have confidence in that process.

So, yes, there really are significant benefits to implementing this regime, but it must be done in a way that ensures that Transport Canada oversight is there and, ultimately, that the public still have confidence that the government is ensuring a safe airline industry.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

But from the concerns we've raised about the attrition rates and the cutbacks in Transport Canada, and the intent of the government to take that significant step back, can you say with 100% assurance that you think this is the way to go, given that you've raised a number of very real caveats?

[David Jeanes]

Yes, and I can't do a clause-by-clause redraft of the law for you here; we don't have the ability to do that, nor have we really had the time to evaluate it at that level. It's just that if these changes are used by the department as an opportunity to downgrade its investment in inspection capability, that would be a mistake—unless that reduction in department manpower is fully compensated by the introduction of the corporate safety culture through SMS. And that's a balance that the department must ensure. The law mustn't just create a situation where they're out of the picture legislatively and where we have in fact devolved too much to a self-regulation situation.

I recognize that SMS is about instilling a corporate safety culture, rather than just totally devolving regulatory responsibility, but it's a balance that has to be handled carefully, and that's our message, rather than saying, don't make this specific clause-by-clause amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Jeanes.

I think the information provided by both groups today will give us lots of questions for Transport Canada to resolve when they come back. I think a lot of questions, perhaps, asked in the latter part should be directed to Transport Canada for answers.

With that, I thank you very much for attending. I appreciate your comments, and I'm sure we'll hear from you in the future. Thank you.

If you like, we'll take a five-minute recess to let people move out. There are just a few things that I would like to briefly discuss with the committee in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]