Transport Committee on Feb. 26th, 2007

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

And—?

[Jim Facette]

It's hard for me to comment beyond that.

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

Are you comfortable with the—? Because Mr. Benson seemed to indicate that he wasn't comfortable. There's a clause I'm starting to focus on here. It's proposed subsection 5.31(3):

A designated organization has all the powers necessary to monitor compliance with the standards and rules that it establishes.

Are you comfortable with that, Mr. Facette?

[Jim Facette]

We are, and I'll have our VP of operations and legal affairs explain why.

[Fred Jones, Vice-President, Operations and Legal Affairs, Canadian Airports Council]

Thank you.

The designated organization could be an association, as in the case of CBAA. It could be a separate and arm's-length incorporated organization. The act isn't specific about what shape the designated organization would take, but there are a number of options, suffice to say.

The organization could be for a prescribed segment of the aviation community under their oversight. It could be that for a certain segment of the standards or regulatory framework, they would be able to establish standards of their own for that segment of the aviation community.

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

If I were to quote some members of the government side—and I would agree—the premier role of the government in the case of what's before us is the paramount importance of the safety of the travelling public. I must admit to some misgivings with the notion that a designated authority would have the powers to set the standards and the rules that would apply, and then enforce them. That doesn't bother you?

[Fred Jones]

Not at all, sir, because, with respect, it's not an abdication of the minister's responsibility; it's a delegation. The minister can step back in to enforce against the designated organization if they violate the system they've articulated for the department. They can even step back in against individual certificate holders. Nothing prevents them from doing that.

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

What would cause the minister, in your mind, to step back in—an incident?

[Fred Jones]

Not necessarily, although that could trigger, it would seem to me, a higher level of oversight.

The minister would step back in and do regular audits of the designated organization, to begin with. If there were problems identified in the course of that audit, they might even be compelled to examine individual certificate holders if there were any misgivings about what was happening inside the organization.

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

If I have a second chance, I'll come back to this.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, sirs, for joining us today.

My first question is directed to you, Mr. Facette. I'm not opposed to the safety management system. In my view, the industry needs to take responsibility for its operations and this is one way to achieve that end. However, I do have a problem with one thing, and that's the whole inspection system in place to ensure the efficient operation of the safety management system. It's a matter of balance. I'm surprised to see that you are in favour of the safety management system. Things are going well for you.That's the solution.

The Canadian Federal Pilots Association had this to say about the situation:

In March 2006 Transport Canada killed the National Audit Program which covers the 8 largest airlines, the 5 largest airports and the 3 largest aircraft manufacturers in this country. The reason? To allow for regulatory oversight resources and funds to be redirected to the administration of SMS programs.

That is what has me worried. We've had our safety problems with Montreal's Trudeau Airport. Reporters are now doing the inspections to ensure that requirements are met. We've learned that since March of 2006, oversight resources at the five largest airports—and I'm assuming Montreal's Trudeau airport falls into this category—have been redirected to safety management systems. I'm not at all reassured by this revelation.

I hope you understand what I'm saying. I would have liked you to talk a little more, as Mr. Barone did somewhat, about the need to maintain an adequate surveillance and oversight system, while administering at the same time safety management systems.

Would you agree with me?

[Jim Facette]

Thank you for the question.

It's a difficult leap to make, to go from one's perception of what an airport's responsibility is in securing the environment today to that of a safety management system. You need to compare apples to apples. I don't know that the comparison is quite there just yet.

The airport responsibility of security is not 100%. What we're talking about here is an evolution of aviation safety and taking it to a whole new level where people on the ground who are working at an airport have a system in place that they can trust, that they can provide information into that can improve the system. So we're also talking about an additional way of making the regulatory environment improve safety over and above where it is today, at a quite high level.

We're confident that the people who work on the front lines at airports have the ability to participate in that kind of system, to ensure that airports are safe, when the proper regulations and the proper environment exist. Comparing it to security at an airport today where the lines are at varying points, they're drawn very differently than they are in anything else, because an airport is not responsible for all measures of security. There are certain things that an airport authority can and cannot do for airport security, so it's a difficult leap to make.

So we would argue that while there are some improvements that need to be made, including to this bill—and we've outlined some very specific improvements in our detailed submission, which will be distributed later—the parallel to security is a little bit difficult to make at this time.

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

You haven't answered my question.

Would you be in favour of putting in place a proper oversight system to ensure that safety management systems operate smoothly?

[Jim Facette]

Yes, we have a system in place to overlook security and make sure it operates today.

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

I'll come back to you later, Mr. Facette.

My second question is for Mr. Gage.

I checked out your website and saw your presentation. Can we assume that the Canadian Business Aviation Association is a designated organization under this Act?

[Rich Gage]

Our organization is enabled under the existing legislation. This is not something that has been done in advance of some amendments to the Aeronautics Act. The existing legislation allowed us to enable what we're doing today. There are extensions of being able to clean up some of the activity that we would like to clean up with the new legislation, but there's nothing that we're doing in advance of legislation.

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

Once the legislation is enacted, you will become a designated organization. Earlier, Mr. Facette said that you were a designated organization.

[Rich Gage]

There will be no change in our position. What I would say is that the term “designation” doesn't necessarily represent us correctly. I believe the term “regulated third party” is a more appropriate way of describing what we do and the linkage to our members and the linkage to Transport Canada.

In terms of the Aeronautics Act, the term “designation” is used, but it's not necessarily the way I would describe our structure.

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

The fact remains that under the new act, it is quite likely that Transport Canada will view you as a designated organization, even if you think differently. If ever an organization should be considered a designated organization under the new act, surely it is your organization.

[Rich Gage]

We are a designated body today to do certain activities and manage and administer elements of the structure. If you're asking me would we do more, the simple answer to that is yes, we would do more, if there was an agreement both from Transport Canada and from the CBAA. So you need a giver and a receiver.

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

As I understand it, you are already accepting some mandates? Is that correct?

[Rich Gage]

I do.

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

Has Transport Canada audited your operating procedures?

[Rich Gage]

We work with Transport Canada on a daily basis at the staff level. We have had one audit from Transport Canada already and we are about to embark on a second audit—or “assessment” may be a better term, assessment from Transport Canada—that will assess the CBAA's entire structure in the way it manages and administers the private operator certification program.