Transport Committee on Feb. 26th, 2007

[Phil Benson]

Just to address it, this just comes to my mind, but I'm not sure it will help you. The whole idea of risk management assessment is basically how you feel about something. Is it high-risk? Is it low-risk? What are the percentages? What do you think is going to happen? Invariably, a company wants it, it's not that risky, and we can do it. I'm joking. There are times when they do not, but rarely.

When they say “low-risk”, I have a strange feeling that maybe what they're talking about is under that process. At least that's been the case the times I've heard it. It's a feeling, not a number.

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

Mr. Benson, with all due respect, the thing is that we are asked to look at legislation. We're told by officials and by people who have spoken with officials that designated organizations would only be meant for “low-risk”. That's nowhere in the current written bill, so I'm trying to determine the intent of those who crafted this, because it becomes my intent as a legislator once it's the law.

This is certainly not my intent now, so I'm trying to understand it. I'm asking people whose livelihood is in the industry to help me understand what is meant by “low-risk”, or conversely by “high-risk” if we can't define “low-risk”.

[Phil Benson]

You're going to find a very difficult time getting an answer to that question.

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

Gentlemen, if you wish to offer responses beyond today, I'm very much open to them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Gage.

[Rich Gage]

It's a terminology that other people have introduced. It's not a terminology that we would necessarily use for designated organizations in terms of what was high-risk or low-risk. But risk is determined through some form of assessment, and there are some probability issues here as well.

The organization is required to do some form of a risk assessment. There's a matrix or way of doing that. Where they determine that there is high risk, risk, or moderate risk, then there needs to be a means of being able to mitigate that risk in some form of a set of procedures or documents.

So the term they're using in the context that they're talking about really doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense, certainly not to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Mr. Chair, I just want to make a point. I don't really have any questions.

We did hear evidence that “low-risk”, in the context, was in relation to airlines that had a given track record. We heard examples of Air Canada and WestJet, which had a track record of no accidents and great responses to government investigations, etc. High-risk ones were actually new airlines that had just started up, with people who don't have a long track record or history of being able to provide safety as their paramount concern. That was my understanding of what “low-risk” and “high-risk” were in the context that we heard from, I believe, the transportation department.

Anyway, I have no questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Barone.

[Sam Barone]

Mr. Chairman, I have a concern with this line of crossing over, in terms of relating to the statement by the honourable member Mr. Bélanger, with respect to a quote that came from the Aerospace Industries Association, which represents aircraft manufacturers. I'm now hearing the statement with respect to airline safety.

As far as we're concerned, this bill codifies a risk management approach in terms of safety, and our record speaks for itself. I would caution about mixing a quote from an aerospace manufacturing association executive with what the airline industry's record represents today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm always a little concerned about how SMS programs are monitored. By the way, I want my colleagues to understand that I am in favour of such systems. The problem lies in how to improve oversight.

Mr. Gage, you stated in your presentation that SMS programs would eliminate bureaucracy and reduce costs. That worries me because Transport Canada did the very same thing. It cut costs. Consider Mr. Watson's graph. Since 2004 , Transport Canada has reduced staff levels and the number of inspectors. If we follow the curve, we see that the number of inspectors increased after September 2001, but is now dropping.

Earlier, Mr. Barone said that the number of inspectors on staff had remained steady. You may think that's true, but in reality, there are fewer of them on the job right now. Transport Canada's goal is to reduce the numbers further. Our job is to ensure that your operations are closely monitored.

Earlier, Mr. Gage, you didn't answer my colleague's question. He wanted to know how often members of your association were subject to an inspection. You told me that your organization had been inspected once, but that another inspection was scheduled to take place soon, within the coming days or months. You told me that you were scheduled to undergo a real inspection.

[A voice]

An evaluation.

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

An evaluation, an audit. That worries me, because evaluations were supposed to be done more often, at shorter intervals. You issue operating licenses to pilots. That's cause for concern, Mr. Gage. I want you and my colleagues to clearly understand what I'm saying. The department is buying tanks, aircraft and helicopters and cutting inspection budgets for civil aviation. I have a problem with that.

[Rich Gage]

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think we're mixing some of our responsibility with Transport Canada's responsibility. Airworthiness is solely the responsibility of Transport Canada. We're not issuing any airworthiness certificates at all.

Our role is purely on the operational side. We provide operational certificates. Operators operate the aircraft within the bounds of the operating parameters. It's nothing to do with airworthiness, nothing to do with maintenance, and nothing to do with other parts of the Transport Canada regulatory structure and Transport Canada's oversight. Our role is limited to that.

I would suggest that two assessments over a four-year period are reasonable for Transport Canada to consider what we're doing and how we're doing it. This is new ground for everybody. This is a cultural change we've embarked on.

In addition to the more informal inspections, there has been routine communication with officials at Transport Canada, at both the staff level and at the president and CEO's level. In my view, there is more than adequate oversight on what we're doing, both from a formal and an informal perspective.

But in terms of the airworthiness activity, that is not our responsibility whatsoever. That is purely a Transport Canada function. They will continue to provide that function the same way they did before.

My response, though, to the efficiency issue is that there are two pieces of red tape here. There's the government element, which I'm not going to respond to; someone else can. But in terms of us delivering service to the members, there's certainly an improvement over what it was when government provided that service. In terms of service to the membership and service to the operator, there are efficiencies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Barone.

[Sam Barone]

Mr. Chairman, in our view, audits will not disappear from this process. Moreover, in addition to the audits, this legislation not only codifies and entrenches the discipline and puts together a framework; the bill insists on airlines and companies under the purview of this bill having an accountable executive that will be personally responsible for ensuring the integrity of this process.

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

That doesn't reassure me in the least, Mr. Barone. In other countries, many board members who were responsible have been prosecuted and jailed. My concern is for the safety of the public. The only way to ensure that the public is safe is by having an adequate inspection service to provide oversight. Personally, I have a problem with your replacing inspectors with company chairmen.

Mr. Benson.

[Phil Benson]

Thank you, Mr. Laframboise. I think it's an excellent comment.

My friend just stated that there are executives and boards of directors, and their presentation made it clear that part of the reason we have some of these prescriptive rules, whether there are too many in here or not, and the reason we have a box around almost everything that happens is this. At the end of the day, it's not a CEO, it's none of my friends—and they are all colleagues here from the various associations I deal with on a regular level—it's the minister, it's you, it's this House of Commons. We're not convinced there's enough box or enough envelope around this particular process and structure that they put forward so that this is in fact going to happen. We have concerns as well. Perhaps they'll be able to address them or deal with them, perhaps not, but that's the question we raised. It's the simple concern, at the end of the day, that our members have a right to travel safely—they're the ones who would get hurt initially—that the public has a right to travel safely, that we have a right to security. The people of Canada have to know that it's not associations or the head of a company, it's the government, it's the transport department, it's the minister. It's the way our Parliament works. We're not totally confident that this bill will in fact ensure that this continues.

Our further concern is that the goal is to roll out the SMS and SEMS systems throughout all the transportation industry. Rail—we know some of the problems there. In some ways, my message to members of Parliament is that we're not opposed to this going forward with the correct box around it, but it's the importance of getting it right, because if this is rolled out wrongly, it might roll out wrongly for a whole bunch of the transportation industry. Therefore, it might be worthy of the members to take a bit more time with the bill to really ensure that it is going to do it properly, sufficiently, to address your concerns.

Thank you for the question. I think that was very helpful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Facette.

[Jim Facette]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, nowhere in my reading of the amendments, because they are not exact, did I read that we're reducing inspectors and that we're replacing inspectors with CEOs. Let's be clear, that's not at all written in the act. What we're trying to achieve here is modernizing the bible of aviation in this country through proven systems that enhance safety. It is in no one's interest, not of those people who we collectively represent at this table, to diminish safety in any way—absolutely not. So the idea that we're going to replace people and then we're going to possibly get away from the safe system that we have today is just not on, it's not there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Barone.

[Sam Barone]

Mr. Chairman, to reiterate the points that we made in our submission today, we are asking for additional inspections and an additional layer of oversight on site at the premises of airlines. Those additional inspections are combined with the legislative requirement that there be an accountable executive within the company. So we're actually marrying responsibility at the carrier level with the oversight of inspectors being on site. We're actually asking for additional oversight.

Moreover, to reiterate about public safety, not only for our airline employees, but also for our passengers, those two aspects are the most important thing we do every day, and we have a record that backs that up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Bélanger.

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

...Mr. Chairman.