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.
4:35 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Helicopter Association of Canada
We view safety in three dimensions and colour, rather than two dimensions and black. We see safety first. In this whole movement towards SMS and this whole movement towards making people responsible and accountable, its first and foremost objective is safety. If at the same time we can be more efficient and if at the same time we can do a better job of managing the resources the taxpayers give us, well, then, all the better, but our first objective is safety.
The reason that our first objective is safety is because we're in a competitive market. We're in a very, very competitive market in the helicopter industry, and if our aircraft are not safe, they're not reliable. Safety and reliability are inextricably linked, and if an aircraft is unsafe, it's because it's poorly maintained. If it's unsafe, it's because the people who are operating it are poorly trained. If it's poorly maintained and the people are poorly trained, it will be unreliable and our customers will go somewhere else.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Zed Liberal Saint John, NB
Thanks.
I'm going to act as a little bit of a chairman of my own questions, because I have a couple more.
Mr. Boucher.
4:35 p.m.
Senior Director, Flight Safety, Air Canada Pilots Association
Thank you.
Well, I can tell you from first-hand experience, because I've been involved in SMS now for the last couple of years, I'm not looking at the affordability here and what is and what isn't. I can just tell you that in my airline, in Air Canada, we've spent over $10 million that I know of on just the flight data analysis. It has cost our company a lot of money to do a flight data analysis program to enhance safety. We didn't have to. We moved on that program back in 1998. It cost a lot of money.
I can also tell you that we complete flight safety investigations. I think it's up to 22 now, last year. In the past, we allowed the Transportation Safety Board to do those flight safety investigations. They don't have the resources to do them all. It has cost our pilots and our airline a lot of time to do flight safety investigations. We're spending a lot of money in SMS, but we're getting benefits as a result of it.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Zed Liberal Saint John, NB
Okay. I have a couple of other points that I want to add and get some reaction to.
All of you talk about safety, but there's also Canada's international reputation. When I hear about the absence of safety protection and the fact that, for example, Germany and Australia are legislating certain provisions, doesn't our international reputation count for quite a bit?
I'm asking the panel or anybody who wants to jump into this to answer.
February 21st, 2007 / 4:40 p.m.
Senior Director, Flight Safety, Air Canada Pilots Association
It does count, and we have legislated SMS in this country too.
I'm saying that we need to ensure there's legislation in Bill C-6 that protects the safety of the data. If you don't protect the data, I can tell you right now that our pilots will not report. Our pilots will kill the $10-million-plus flight data analysis program. Believe me, there are a lot of people out there in the industry who would love to get hold of that information.
We're not holding the information here. We want it de-identified. We want to take the information and work with the other countries around the world to enhance flight safety.
We are leaders. We, the Air Canada pilots, want to be part of the program, but we want to do it with protection. Bill C-6 does not give us that protection.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Paul Zed Liberal Saint John, NB
What I generally get from this panel is not only on the safety standard and the international reputation, but there's a general concern that we need to be very cautious about preventing too much delegation to the collective commercial airline industry. Is that overstating it? Is the position I've just stated overstating the consensus this panel is agreeing with?
4:40 p.m.
Senior Director, Flight Safety, Air Canada Pilots Association
From my point of view, it is correct. We still need the regulatory people in place to do the job.
This is going to take time. SMS isn't going to happen overnight. It's going to take five or ten years. It's going to take time for the culture to change. It's not quite there yet, and who knows how long it's going to take.
4:40 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Helicopter Association of Canada
I'll try to answer.
SMS isn't an exchange of power, and it isn't moving Transport Canada out. It's entering into a partnership with Transport Canada where we marry the forces and the tools Transport Canada has, we use them better, and we marry them with the tools that aviation has.
Transport Canada inspectors can't be everywhere. But aviators, pilots, engineers, and managers can be, and we are everywhere. If we can be empowered to do a better job at managing safety, the whole system will be much safer.
4:40 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Aerospace Industries Association of Canada
I would wholeheartedly agree with that. I think the key word is “empowerment”.
This is an area of aviation safety where a partnership can be far more effective than an us-versus-them situation. Bill C-6, the designated organizations, the delegation authorities, and SMS are all part of creating a much stronger partnership between elements of industry and Transport Canada and are not displacing Transport Canada.
But as our industry continues to grow and mature, the regulatory regime needs to evolve to ensure we provide the highest levels of safety possible here in Canada and internationally, because that international reputation is very important.
4:40 p.m.
National Chair, Canadian Federal Pilots Association
If I could have the opportunity to respond as well, I think somebody might have misinterpreted our approach here. We're not against SMS. SMS is a good idea. I agree with the vast majority of comments that have been expressed about SMS.
What we're talking about here today is that the system of regulatory checks and balances has to be maintained while we're bringing SMS on line. SMS is a good idea, and hopefully it will deliver all the things we anticipate it will do, but we need to have a balanced approach to make the transition.
I'm providing information to you here today to let you know that I am concerned. I would like you to be aware that as you make your deliberations, there are a lot of things that have already been shut down.
Thank you.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Thank you. It is all there. I am one of those who want the safety management system, or SMS, to work. However, from the very beginning, I have questioned whether we are disengaging from the inspection system at the same time. We were told that discussions began in 1998. However, we cannot forget the events of September 2001. The public's threshold with regard to safety issues has changed.
The Transportation Safety Board was unable to tell us whether or not the SMS had led to a decrease in rail accidents. That means that there are questions. I agree with all of you that, until SMS becomes fully operational, Transport Canada will have to maintain an inspection system.
The Transport Canada decision of December 2005 is problematic for me. Civil Aviation Directive No. 39 was issued in the midst of the election campaign. We, the members of Parliament, have noted that the Transport Canada focus is not the safety of citizens but rather cost reduction.
I am sorry, Mr. Fast, but the unions told us that, as of August 2005, there were cuts to staff, as shown in the table I submitted. We must ensure that there is an adequate inspection system. I have a problem when the ACPA tells us that inspectors will not have the same role once SMS is implemented. As you stated, Mr. Boucher, in five to ten years they will not have the same duties but, in the meantime, the inspection system must be maintained in order to guarantee the safety of citizens.
My question is for Mr. Holbrook. In the end, what you are saying is that the inspection system is no longer what it was a few years ago.
4:45 p.m.
National Chair, Canadian Federal Pilots Association
That's exactly what I'm saying, that the system is being scaled back and shut down systematically over the last couple of years, and the plan is to continue to do so, because they simply do not have enough resources to bring SMS on line and continue with the traditional checks and balances.
In the Toronto Star earlier this year it was reported that the SMS is driven by Transport Canada's need to reduce costs. The budget for aviation safety regulation is actually expected to drop from $265 million in 2003-04 to $243 million in 2007-08. Transport Canada management is in a very tough situation and they're looking for these initiatives to help solve their problem.
I hope we have a system coming out of this exercise that has a balanced approach, that ensures that we maintain things in an appropriate manner until such time as we have the new system up to speed, and we have the evidence and confidence that it is actually delivering on what we anticipate it will deliver.
4:45 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Helicopter Association of Canada
Mr. Chair, I would like to clarify a point regarding Directive No. 39. It is not the inspections that were cancelled, but the investigations ultimately leading to a sanction, fine or document suspension. In other words, when a safety management system is in place, we must let the company manage the safety issue without placing it in a position where it is forced to remain silent because it faces reprisals or a punitive investigation.
Directive No. 39 does not mention that inspections will no longer be carried out. On the contrary, it transfers resources to other types of inspections. Any SMS is based on that concept. Inspections will be carried out by companies and their employees. Transport Canada resources will be channelled towards activities that are more productive in terms of ensuring safety.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Except, Mr. Jenner, you cannot guarantee that all companies have the financial capability to ensure...That is why a transition is required. You are aware of how an airline is born and dies; you have witnessed it in recent years. Since I am entrusted with defending the interests of the public, I must ensure that Transport Canada...we are going back a ways to the Dubin Report. The overall safety of transportation in Canada is at stake. There is a reason why our country has the best safety record. Our concern is to ensure that this continues.
4:50 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Helicopter Association of Canada
That answers your question, sir, because rather than allocating resources to the inspection of a company that is known to be financially sound, we allocate resources to companies where there are doubts about its financial footing, the quality of management or companies that show signs of potential risks.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
No, however that leads us to assume that the company can do it. That is why you are telling us that it will take between 5 and 10 years before companies have such a system in place. That presupposes that companies could operate as they should right away, from the very beginning. It is for this reason I have a great deal of difficulty accepting that a directive was issued in the midst of an election campaign. You do not seem to have any trouble accepting that; of course, you are not a politician.
4:50 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Helicopter Association of Canada
Not at all, it is a directive concerning investigations that lead to sanctions. An investigation will determine whether someone was going 110 km/h or 120 km/h. What we are saying is that, in our context, if a company already has a mechanism in place to deal with non-compliance with a regulation, we should let it deal with it and we should monitor its system to see whether or not it succeeds. We should monitor them closely.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Holbrook, could you tell us if all companies should be allowed to operate in this way?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I don't have anything as in-depth as the Toronto Star to quote here, but I am going to talk a little bit about what Mr. Zed was talking about, and that's Canada's international representation to the world.
I'd like each one of the witnesses to have a chance to just talk a little bit about their knowledge about how SMS has been implemented in other parts of the world, particularly the United Kingdom and Australia. If I'm getting the correct feedback from the people to whom I'm talking, it has been an overwhelming success in those parts of the world. So if you're comfortable, each witness who is comfortable, I'd like to hear what you have to say about that.
4:50 p.m.
Vice-President, Civil Aviation, Aerospace Industries Association of Canada
If you'd like, Mr. Chairman, I'll respond to that by saying that under the present system of certifications and delegations Transport Canada engages part of our member companies in the safety agenda. Under safety management systems, Transport Canada engages the entire company by placing the accountability with the chief executive officer. That's why we're so confident that SMS will move us forward to the next level of safety. I have a passing acquaintance with how these SMSs are being implemented in the other countries, but not in any great detail. But I believe, like you, that they are successful.
