Transport Committee on Feb. 21st, 2007

[Capt Brian Boucher]

I can only speak for our association. As you know, we work with the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations and we deal with those countries that have already implemented SMS, like Australia--we deal with those airlines. We're also part of ICAO; as you know, it's an ICAO initiative, and we support it. We really do.

I listened to the discussion back and forth about enforcement practices. I can tell you from first-hand experience of over-altitude violations, of landing on the wrong runway last year in Washington National Airport, and how we carried out a flight safety investigation and we got down to the root cause. It wasn't to find blame. It wasn't to implement a fine. We went down to the root cause, and if we didn't have SMS, if we didn't have flight safety investigations in place, that would have never happened. So first-hand experience showed in the last couple of years that it works, and we're so happy as a pilot group that it works so well.

It also gives us the opportunities, and the other countries agree with what I'm saying here, to explore other initiatives like fatigue risk management to deal with pilot fatigue. We've heard about this in the news, and SMS allows us to do that. Forget about the regulations and enforcing a regulation, because quite frankly it isn't working. And SMS gives us an alternative to make changes to the regulatory framework that we deal with today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Holbrook.

[Greg Holbrook]

Yes, I think that Brian's comments are quite correct. SMS does offer the potential to exceed the regulatory standards, and that's a good thing.

ICAO was advocating a two-pronged approach to civil aviation authorities around the world: not only promote SMS, but maintain a strong and robust set of regulatory and safety oversight tools being exercised by the civil aviation authority of the state.

They advocate SMS programs, and there are lots of benefits to those, but the regulatory oversight framework should not be dismantled. We're seeing that the framework and the legislation are being left there in Canada, but the activities related to it are being curtailed. We do not see that in any other jurisdiction around the world.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jenner.

[Brian Jenner]

To my knowledge, and I am part of the International Federation of Helicopter Associations and many other organizations, there is no other constituency that is as far advanced in SMS as is Canada. We are leading the way.

I know that the Australian association is constantly in contact with us and constantly questioning us as to where we're at, how we're proceeding. I do also know that in the United States airline industry, the FAA initiated a non-punitive reporting system for pilots. In the first 30 days, if memory serves me, they had 300 reports, 300 incidents that had been hidden in the system before we allowed the people to speak freely. Those 300 reports allowed the FAA to identify various systemic problems at certain airports and to correct them overnight.

So this is the idea: SMS is like taking the system we have, which is very good--especially in Canada, we have a very good record--but which has been stagnant for 15 years, as we haven't been improving safety for the last 15 years, and putting a hybrid engine into the system. It will be more effective. We will get a little bit better cruising speed out of it, but we'll also get a lot of efficiencies out of it, for both government and industry.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Jenner.

I'd like to make one more quick comment here, and I have one quick question, Mr. Holbrook.

We've heard from Mr. Boucher how we went from 300 to 5,000 reports a year. I feel like at every committee meeting I have to put it on the record for Mr. Julian that this is actually overlapping, putting a system overtop the regulations that we already have in place.

Mr. Holbrook, what I'm hearing from you is that you would endorse that if we kept the regulations we currently have and put SMS overtop of that.

Sir, I consistently hear how this is just a measure for Transport Canada to save money. Do you have any numbers on how much money, you speculate, Transport Canada is going to save off this?

[Greg Holbrook]

No. Transport Canada doesn't share their financial figures with us.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

This is the juxtaposition of the argument I keep hearing. Is there—

[Greg Holbrook]

If you go through the documents I've tabled before you today, every single one of them justifies the movement of SMS and the switch to it as a way to redirect the resources away from the activities we're doing now to SMS. You're not going to do both.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Do you have any numbers for us?

[Greg Holbrook]

Do I have any numbers for you? What specific numbers are you looking for, sir?

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Well, I'm looking for some evidence in this whole argument that this is simply a cost-saving measure for Transport Canada. It's one thing to have an argument, but I would like to see some evidence that would back it up, other than speculation or hearsay.

[Greg Holbrook]

I'm not speculating. I'm giving you the documents from the department that show you they've shut down these programs. What the specific cost of those programs is I don't specifically know, because that information is not available to me from the department. They do not share their financial records with me.

All I can point you to is that these programs were shut down, and these are the activities that relate to the regulatory framework that is going to be maintained. We're taking the activities and the people and resources involved in doing those regulatory functions and safety oversight functions, and we're now switching them and investing them in SMS activity. We are not going to continue to do both activities. You will have a legislative framework that will put SMS on top of the regulatory framework, but the activities associated with the existing regulations will no longer continue to exist.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I wonder, before I begin, Mr. Chairman, if you would allow me two reflections. One is that perhaps we could have our researchers come up with the answers Mr. Holbrook was asked to provide. They should be a little easier for them to provide. I imagine that if they examine the budget documents from the last two budgets, they ought to be able to come up with something. It'll be most instructive for us.

Secondly, I apologize to the witnesses before us for being late and trying to catch up. I say that as an introduction, because I had a sense of comfort before I started to hear what you had to say, but that comfort level has diminished somewhat, so please correct me as I go through this.

First of all, my sense from your responses is that yes, you welcome SMS; no, you didn't like the safety track record before; yes, you think there should be a culture change—and that to me implies that the industry, the companies, weren't particularly forthcoming without the appropriate regulatory inducements, whether sticks or carrots—and now you're still prepared to be a part of the culture change, but you still want the regulatory oversight.

Where have I gone wrong here?

Mr. Boucher, I'm particularly thinking of you when I ask those questions.

[Capt Brian Boucher]

We're not saying we want to do away with the regulatory framework, by all means. The example I used earlier was our flight time duty regulations. In Canada, if we compare ourselves with the rest of the world, we don't do a very good job, in my opinion, if we want to be leaders in aviation safety. In fact, if we compare the flight duty regulations around the world, we don't do a very good job, in our opinion, with that area of the regulations.

Fatigue risk management is a program that Air Canada, the regulator, and the associations all bought into. So we're not saying to do away with the regulatory framework, but we think we can improve flight safety by addressing pilot fatigue. It's a big issue for us.

What we have seen is that in the old days when we violated a regulation—for example, missing an altitude coming to Ottawa, which is something that would happen, when we were supposed to level off at 17,000 feet and the aircraft would continue at 20,000 feet—it would be reported, investigated by the regulatory authority, and that was the end of it. There might have been a fine; the pilot might have been disciplined and taken off the line for three days without pay. What does that really prove? Nothing.

But under SMS, what it did was drill down to the root cause. We don't want to make errors and we want those errors reported. So we drilled down and found out that there are those latent issues that someone mentioned earlier when they looked into the FAA, when those pilots reported: “Look at what's behind the scene; look at what's latent; look what's down there that's been about to bite us in the butt and make us have an accident.” Now, because our pilots are reporting, we can identify and be proactive and head those things off before we have an accident. That's what SMS does.

So I'm not saying do away with the regulations, sir. What we're doing, I guess, is saying it's another layer.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

No, I don't see that. That's the justification I've been given all the time. The reason I'm skeptical now, after listening to all of you, is that it would appear that the industry, including those who provide the services as well as the corporate industry, is being encouraged to comply and to provide information—to use your terms, to drill down and get to the root causes—because otherwise they wouldn't do it. That's always troubling to me, because I use the services quite a bit. I'm rather concerned that people are reluctant to come forward.

Now, if they have been reluctant to come forward with information that would make the service much more secure and much safer.... I hear Captain Holbrook telling me that perhaps this is not going to solve the problem, because people are not being given, first, the inducement, or second, the protection, to come forward.

There's a conflict, between a desire to establish a different culture and at the same time action that suggests that this culture is not going to come into being because the resources aren't going to be there.

If they're not there for Transport Canada, what would give me the confidence that the industry will put the resources in place?

[Robert Mather]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's true to say that the AIAC member companies have introduced what could be called continuous improvement programs for improving quality and service within their organizations. SMS simply reinforces that. The culture change goes from blaming people for making mistakes, to actually seeking out reports of errors or omissions so that they can be fixed. It's celebrating errors so that we can say we've brought them out into the open, we can thank the employees for that, and we can then going ahead and fix the errors.

From the AIAC side, many of the companies were engaged in continuous improvement programs, which SMS reinforces. I'd like you to feel confident—as my colleague, Mr. Boag said—that we are a mature industry and are looking forward to implementing SMS, so that we do not wait until things go wrong, but find the precursors that are indicating things might not be as good as they could be.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I'm sure you would appreciate, Mr. Mather, that the general public—I think I'm pretty representative of the general public, and I'm not talking about my elected position—feels more comfortable when there is a competent regulatory body, a third party that ensures that all of the continuous improvements of service mechanisms are in place, that safety measures are in place, or that the procedures that need to be followed in order to ensure a safe provision of services are followed. What I think is now happening with the information that you, as a panel, are providing is that you're asking me, as a member of the public, to put more faith in a company to determine how safely it really is operating its service, but I don't have a third party giving me that assurance anymore. Is that what I should have gotten from you, Mr. Holbrook?

[Greg Holbrook]

Yes, that's our concern. The industry members will largely be monitoring themselves. Our inspectors will be redirected from the direct actual operations, from looking at that through audits, inspections, and surveillance programs. They will be redirected to reviewing SMS programs and looking at the systems and structure. If it's there, the company has it in place, and it meets requirements, that's the end of the involvement with Transport Canada. They will not be reviewing the actual operation any more.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Mather, for one comment.

[Robert Mather]

I have one very quick comment.

We do not see SMS as a way of disengaging Transport Canada. We believe a vigorously involved certification agency is a vital ingredient, as you quite rightly have said, in our safety reputation and in the confidence that the public and our overseas trading partners have in our product.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just have a few questions for Mr. Holbrook.

How many members do you represent?

[Greg Holbrook]

Approximately 470 right now.