Transport Committee on Feb. 19th, 2007

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

You said that the current SMS are eroding the application and the respect of the Canada Labour Code, the rights that flow from that for employees. Would you please elaborate on that? That could be a significant concern.

[Michael Wing]

One of the groups that I believe is looking to make presentation to the committee has brought to our attention that some of their workplace health and safety committees that fall under the guidance of part II of the Canada Labour Code are being denied access to safety issues that are not being brought forward because of confidentiality and non-disclosure.

We are not experiencing that ourselves. We know other organizations working for the industry have been experiencing this problem. I'm glad there is a concern there, because it's—

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I have to stop here, because our time is going to run out.

Quickly, if those groups that have concerns are not going to appear, would you please convey that they can send their concerns in writing to us? I think they should.

[Michael Wing]

I'll pass that on.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Finally, if you have any written text of amendments from your association that you'd like to see this committee consider, please pass those on in writing. We can look at them and kick them around at committee when we get to the clause-by-clause study.

[Michael Wing]

We will.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first question is for you, Mrs. Smith. You know that Bill C-6 had been prepared by the previous government and that we did not have the time during the previous legislature to have an in-depth debate about it nor to hear any witnesses.

The new government does not seem to understand the whole matter of transportation safety, even though it is very important. The famous Dubin report of 1982 which led to the setting up of the Transportation Safety Tribunal of Canada stated that safety has to be a responsibility of the government. Therefore, full powers were given to Transport Canada, and the government and the department had to take responsibility for safety.

The inspection function was strengthened, new inspectors were hired and so on and, in the end, if some licenses or certificates were suspended or canceled, people could turn to the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada, an independent body, to get a hearing.

Am I mistaken or do I understand correctly the basic idea of the famous Dubin report?

[Faye Smith]

Yes, you are right.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I want to ask you if you have ever felt in your work that the inspection system of Transport Canada was inadequate. Have you ever had that feeling? Do you think the system should be improved or that Transport Canada and its inspectors have carried out their work properly since you've been in your position or since the creation of the Tribunal?

[Faye Smith]

Vis-à-vis the inspections that the inspectors do and the cases that come before the tribunal, if the inspectors did not do a proper inspection then that would go to the defence; they would obviously benefit by that. But we don't have any observations with respect to any derogation from safety in their inspections.

We don't see anything that we would comment on, is what I meant.

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

Very well.

Looking at your report, I see that you deal with 150 to 200 cases per year. You make findings about those cases and, if you think that a decision was not made fairly, you tell the minister.

This is what the Dubin report had contemplated. However, where I see a problem is that some designated organizations—and I am referring here to ALPA, the Airline Pilots Association—have told us that with this Bill the traditional oversight function will be changed. As far as they are concerned, it is clear that the inspectors will not do the same work as in the past because the safety management system will have them work more as auditors than inspectors.

This is a concern to me because of the whole balanced system that had been recommended by Justice Dubin—I am trying to understand why some people are so intent on the changing the inspection system and I can't find any good reasons related to safety. As far as labor relations are concerned, since they are overseen by inspectors, I can understand why airline pilots would not like to be overseen by other pilots who are inspectors. I can see that there is a human relations issue here. However, for matters of safety, I fail to understand why the government wants to change the system.

I have no objection to adding a safety management system as long as we keep an inspection system that is as good as the one we have now, as well as inspectors who have received the same training and who are able to go anywhere to inspect the airlines.

It is difficult for me to accept that the inspection system should change. If that were to happen, would you have any concerns?

[Faye Smith]

I really don't know.

As I say, I don't know what the rationale is for the designation to parties outside, as opposed to the government. I don't know what the driving force is for that, and I don't know what systems are in place to measure the efficacy of the system.

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

My next question is for Mr. Stoss and is on the same issue.

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada conducts investigations after the fact, that is to say after there has been an accident. Since the Dubin report, have you ever felt that the inspection system of Transport Canada should be changed, perhaps because you would have seen that there were more accidents or that the system was not effective? I'm not referring here to adding an SMS but only to keeping the inspection system. Do you believe that we should review the way inspections are carried out now at Transport Canada?

[Nick Stoss]

I shall answer in English.

The objective of our investigations into any occurrences is to find some deficiencies, and the basic process takes a look at the elements that contributed to those efficiencies, things that contributed to either a bad decision or possibly an aircraft malfunction. In our particular approach to that we generally look at those underlying factors, deficiencies, and then make recommendations on them. When we conduct our current investigations we do take a look at all the factors associated with an unsafe condition.

Now, in this regard the safety board does identify any items dealing with the adequacy of the current inspection system there, and of course we make recommendations on those deficiencies. In the past we have noted certain aspects of some of our investigations that may have had some weaknesses in them, and again, our particular role is to make those public in our findings. In the recent past we have not made any recommendations on any of the deficiencies they have found, because we have not determined them to be systemic.

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

My last question is for Mr. Wing.

Could you explain to us the work of the inspectors? It is important for us to understand the work of your employees or of the people you represent and why this inspection system had been set up following from the Dubin report.

Mrs. Smith, you did that very well in your statement. Can you explain why there is a risk in changing the work of the people you represent?

[Michael Wing]

Thank you, Mr. Laframboise.

Our members are responsible for carrying out the responsibilities of the minister under the Aeronautics Act. It has a number of authorities that it is responsible for. It ensures, first of all, that the planes have been certified as air worthy and have been given a certificate to ensure that they're capable of flying. They are supposed to perform audits on these companies—on industry—I think, depending on the company, within a one- or two-year period of one another. They're also supposed to go back and conduct follow-ups to those audits if they find any problem with how the operations are being done. We've seen over the last number of years that there's been a reduction in this area. The number of audits that are supposed to be happening, the number of follow-up audits, the number of ad hoc audits, are not being done. I think the concerns you expressed in your questions to the other people earlier are very valid concerns.

You've mentioned Justice Dubin. I would ask you to please take a look at some of the comments from Justice Virgil Moshansky, the other person who has conducted probably the most significant inquiry into aviation in this country. He speaks directly to the concerns he has with regard to the reduction in inspections.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I can advise you that we do have the senator coming to present to this committee.

Due to time, we'll go to Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to each of the witnesses for coming forward, particularly to you, Mr. Wing. You've given by far the best presentation we've heard yet in terms of Bill C-6.

I wanted to start by asking if your union also represents railway workers.

[Michael Wing]

Not railway workers, but railway inspectors, Mr. Julian. Our members work for Transport Canada. The members who work in this particular area do not work for industry.

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

As you know, we've had the safety management systems within the railways now for a number of years, and there were many concerns that have been raised. I just want to read for the record that the Shareholder Association for Research and Education has cited that the most recent safety figures available show that CN's accident ratio for the second quarter of 2006 increased by 56% over the second quarter of 2005, and for the third quarter of 2006 the accident ratio, again for CN, increased by 40% over the third quarter of 2005. So in a sense we have a problem that is escalating and getting worse.

What's your evaluation of how safety management systems have worked within the railway industry?

[Michael Wing]

I think the statistics speak for themselves. These are the very concerns we have about SMS in the aviation industry.

It's quite understandable that private companies would be interested in maintaining a bottom line. Some of these decisions that are being made on a day-to-day basis are a question of whether the bottom line is going to be affected, or whether safety is going to be affected. I think we've really seen, through what has been happening in the rail sector, what the outcome of that type of decision-making is.

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

Did you see the W-FIVE program that was aired the week before last?

[Michael Wing]

I did not.

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

That program was aired on CTV and said about the escalating accident rate:

Railway insiders say CN is not the only one to blame, and that government must bear some responsibility for the spike in accidents. Changes to railway legislation have taken power away from government--yielding more authority to railway companies to develop their own safety schemes.

Then the report quotes transportation consultant Greg Gormick as saying “This is about failed transportation policy”.

On what has happened within the railway, certainly in British Columbia we've felt very keenly the increase in accidents—the deaths of railway employees, and the destruction of habitat. Would you say that the safety management system within the railways has been a failed transportation policy because of the results? On the Cheakamus River half a million fish died. Habitat was destroyed in Wabamun Lake. Deaths took place in the Fraser Canyon.