Evidence of meeting #37 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.
A recording is available from Parliament.
National Chair, Canadian Federal Pilots Association
My understanding of the comment was that it would not have been seen favourably by Transport Canada if any active inspectors appeared before this committee.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
And implicitly, perhaps there would be consequences for that.
National Chair, Canadian Federal Pilots Association
As a result, I looked at it from the perspective that I am the only individual who can share this message with you gentlemen, so that you can have it available to—
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, we've let this witness go on, but the reality is he was not privy to the conversation. He's giving it third-hand. My understanding from the evidence so far is that it was a conversation he didn't have.
National Chair, Canadian Federal Pilots Association
I didn't speak directly with the individual, no. It was a message from my—
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
How could he read into it when he couldn't hear the tone of the voice? He didn't even get the words properly. I think the evidence in relation to this should certainly not be before the committee. If we want to have the person who actually had the conversation, that would be something different.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Chair, the witness has the right to report conversations he has had. It is not up to us to interpret them. He is not saying just anything. It is contained in a document that was submitted. I think he can speak about it. A report does exist, and it has practically been signed.
Liberal
Paul Zed Liberal Saint John, NB
Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague from the Bloc. Clearly this isn't a courtroom. The witness hasn't described it in any other way than what he has described.
This is of a very deep concern to a number of members. I'm sure it's a deep concern to you, Mr. Jean.
We know the caution he put out, which is that he didn't directly deal with it. I don't see what's inappropriate about him continuing. We understand the nature of what he said. This gentleman is no dummy. He knows exactly what he thought the message was that was being sent to him and he knows the tone it was given.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, to be fair, he was not present. He did not hear the tone. He doesn't even know what words were expressed and he's interpreting a conversation he was not even involved with.
We're totally off topic. It's just not appropriate, Mr. Chair. If the committee wants to bring forward the witness who actually heard the telephone conversation, I think that would be appropriate. I have no difficulty with that. Certainly I'd be appreciative of that. We would like to get to the bottom of it. But to ask this witness for interpretation of a phone call that he wasn't party to seems ridiculous.
Conservative
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would hope that members on both sides of this committee table will take the seriousness of this issue to heart, and I would certainly hope that they want to get to the bottom of it.
I certainly agree with the comments of Mr. Bélanger and Mr. Laframboise, and I think this committee will have to come back to that issue. I will move on, though, because time is limited today, and there is no way we can ask all the questions of Mr. Holbrook that come out of his very insightful presentation.
I want to go back to the steps you outlined in your brief. First off, in December 2005 Transport Canada issued civil aviation directive 39, which you say handed over enforcement investigation to the airline consultant. That happened in the middle of the election campaign. I'm not even sure the government of the day would have been aware of that.
Could you run through how that directive was issued--if you have the date, that would be helpful--and whether it was brought to the new Minister of Transport's attention, and whether you heard anything about whether or not the Ministry of Transport moved to withdraw that directive, and what the consequences are, of course.
National Chair, Canadian Federal Pilots Association
The directive is contained in tab 2 of your reference material. It's the actual copy of the directive that is in force and remains in force on Transport Canada's website. It was made effective December 16, 2005. My understanding is that it is still in force and effect. It specifically says that it will apply to all civil aviation functions responsible for oversight or certification of the aviation industry, as well as those responsible for enforcement and investigation of regulatory contraventions.
As to the issue of who was advised internally within the department to approve this document and issue it, I have no knowledge whatsoever of that, because I don't work in the department and I can only speak to what I see, as a published document, from the department.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you for that.
My comment is that something of this importance that's issued in the middle of an election campaign is very disturbing to me.
What, then, would be the impact of that directive?
National Chair, Canadian Federal Pilots Association
If you were to go to the website and review the enforcement policy and the specific procedures to be followed by inspectors, they are instructed that if they are advised of an occurrence that relates to a company that has an SMS or is working on an SMS, then they are not to take any action in enforcement or investigation, and they are to refer to the inspector responsible for that company, who will forward that information directly to the company and request that they handle the investigation and look into the occurrence in accordance with their safety management system.
The only caveat to that is where there is direct evidence of intentional wrongdoing from the outset. However, if an investigation never occurs, it's highly unlikely that an initial report will provide that information to an inspector.
NDP
National Chair, Canadian Federal Pilots Association
Not to investigate any reports of occurrences, yes, for those companies that have an SMS.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Yes, okay. That was the first shoe.
The second, then: in March 2006, Transport Canada then moved to kill the national audit program covering the largest airlines, the largest airports, and aircraft manufacturing. What is the impact of killing the national audit program? What did the national audit program do, and what are the consequences of removing that?
National Chair, Canadian Federal Pilots Association
It now means that you do not have, on a regular basis, a multidisciplinary team of experts--pilots, maintenance engineers, dangerous goods personnel, cabin safety people--going in and conducting a complete review of an airline's operations on an ongoing basis. It will be done now strictly as focused inspections on an as-required basis where Transport Canada has information to believe that there is something they need to look at.
But given that they're not investigating reports of occurrences, and given that they are relying on the companies to report through SMS, and given that they've shut down the regular audit visits on a regular program basis, it's a question in our members' minds as to when they actually will be visiting these operators.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
So if we put these two elements together, the audit program was a regular series of inspections, which were important in the same way that you have auditors checking financial books to avoid the kind of Enron management we occasionally see, and ensuring that this doesn't happen.
Killing the national audit program killed that attempt to do this on a regular basis. As I understand it, the civil aviation directive number 39 would not allow the inspections to take place, even when issues arose.
National Chair, Canadian Federal Pilots Association
That's our belief, and what it does is takes away the regular, ongoing, independent review of aviation operations done by a third party outside of the company.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Holbrook, you represent some 375 pilots who are inspectors, correct?
