Transport Committee on Feb. 26th, 2007

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

You have exercised certain powers since 2003. You say that you have only been audited once since 2003.

[Rich Gage]

That's correct. We have been issuing operative certificates for the past four years, initially under an exemption, and then more recently under the changes to the regulation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Gage.

Mr. Atamanenko.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Thank you very much for taking the time to be here, gentlemen.

Bear with me; my first question is quite long, but I think it describes what might be happening. I'll ask Mr. Benson initially to respond and also get your comments.

We have seen how Air Canada Jazz mechanics have exposed dangerous practices that have put the lives of 80,000 Canadians at risk over the last five years due to near misses. The airline has allowed an average of one flight a week to take off, even with serious mechanical problems. We have also seen how four Air Canada Jazz mechanics were suspended last year for highlighting dangerous practices by the airline concerned, after their complaints to Transport Canada yielded no results.

At their last press conference, Canada's aviation inspectors released a Pollara survey indicating that two and three aviation inspectors believed that Transport Canada's SMS system supported by Bill C-6 will increase risk to the system, and 80% of Canada's most experienced inspectors say it will prevent them from correcting safety problems before they happen. They have also exposed the fact that a lack of whistle-blower protection in Bill C-6 will not provide protection to whistle-blowers from a punitive environment and will increase the safety deficit.

We're assuming the inspectors know their trade. What they said is common sense. By handing oversight exclusively to industry associations and airline companies and leaving the determination of appropriate risk levels in the hands of the airlines, inspectors will no longer be able to assess if what they see on paper is reflected in reality, on-site. As we have seen, workers will have even less protection if they blow the whistle.

Do you agree with what the inspectors are saying? If so, what would you propose as counterweights as part of a balanced approach to fix the problems? Mr. Benson, you mentioned you have other recommendations of what needs to be done. Gentlemen, please feel free to comment on this.

[Phil Benson]

Thank you.

I can't comment on the media reports, other than what is in the media reports. Obviously, we're always concerned when the safety of an operation is questioned, as our members fly those planes and deal with them, and of course we like to minimize it.

The major issue with the bill is the process by which the regulations are set. At the end of the day, if we have a process whereby the regulations are set because companies want it, we end up with a situation where they are self-regulating. There are a whole bunch of issues for which we would not have a concern. I agree if it's a silly regulation, something is green, not black, or not blue, it's irrelevant. But when it comes to affecting the health and safety of workers, when it comes to issues or the assumption that companies will always do what's best for everybody's safety, the reason we have prescriptive rules is that this has proven not to be the case.

In this case, prescriptive rules surrounding health and safety concerns of workers, safety in the workplace, and the safety of the travelling public, we have no confidence at all that a proper box is going to be built around these rules to ensure that the government and the transport department have the necessary oversight to ensure that indeed the travelling public is safe, and that our members are safe.

On the issue of the health of workers, the Arthurs report was quite clear about that. Currently, Transport Canada's goal in efficiency and economy, basically the corporate bottom line, means that the scales are not balanced. Under the Canada Labour Code, when it comes to workers and their needs, it is balanced. We have to look at what's good for the economy and the efficiency of corporations.

We're all for companies making money, but at the same time we have to balance both social concerns and the health and safety concerns contained in the code. We're not convinced at all under these particular proceedings or these particular processes. In fact, our experience has been exactly the opposite, that it has not been dealt with properly and adequately. If we roll forward, our concern for the travelling public and also for parliamentarians is we're not sure the minister is going to maintain the oversight they should. We do not have total confidence in the process and we take part in it every time we can.

Thank you.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Are there any other comments?

[Jim Facette]

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

I would just say, Mr. Chairman, to the committee member, that you should be careful about the use of the word “exclusively”, because nowhere in the act does it say, in our reading of it, that the powers would be given exclusively to anyone. As we outlined earlier, there is still an opportunity for the minister to intervene at the appropriate time, and the proper mechanisms are in place to do so. So that doesn't go away. That is just as a point of clarity.

I'd also like to make it very clear that we have put forward a position that this is going to enhance safety. It will provide for the ability of people to make things safer.

We agree, and we outline it in detail in our presentation, that there are some issues, and changes need to be made, in the whole area of confidentiality and information so you can ensure that the information can be provided and that people on the front line can make things safer. But you should be careful to characterize in the debate that designated organizations cannot do things as safely or better than they are done today, because that's just, honestly, misrepresenting what is the intent of the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, please.

[Sam Barone]

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

I want to clarify for the committee that this is not a back-of-the-envelope approach we have here. Aviation SMS are well established throughout the world, and they're carefully designed to look at the realities of our industry in terms of how we do business.

Moreover, we are very proud of our safety record. Even according to Transport Canada's safety data, we're among the best in the world, and it's getting better. We're not asking for anyone's trust when it comes to safety. We actually welcome the scrutiny, Mr. Chairman. We are, as an industry, one of the most tightly and highly regulated industries in Canada and in the world, and when it comes to safety, rightly so. Bill C-6 simply introduces better discipline. It codifies and entrenches, actually, the concerns about punitive and non-punitive reporting, and we want that codified.

Moreover, for us as an industry, safety is not a cost, it's an investment. Right now, we are using SMS. What we're saying is that this bill codifies it in a cost-neutral way. It also codifies some other concerns that the honourable member has brought up, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We'll go to Mr. Gage, very briefly.

[Rich Gage]

I fully support ATAC's position, recognizing that our accident rate is flat. It's come down considerably over the last forty years, but nevertheless, it's flat, and the prescriptive concept we've been using is not improving on that. We need to find new ways of doing business in terms of managing safety, and SMS is one way to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of you for attending today.

I listened intently to Mr. Benson as he spoke to the bill. What pops out again, and this has popped out before at this committee, are the words “deregulation” and “self-regulation”. I know that Transport Canada and the minister have gone to great pains to emphasize that this isn't self-regulation or deregulation. To me, self-regulation implies a wholesale abdication of responsibility and accountability on the minister's part.

I'm assuming that all of you have read the bill. I'm assuming that all of you have read, or at least fully understand, the contents of the Aeronautics Act and how the bill and that act work together now to improve safety in the air.

I'll just throw this out to you. Do you see this as being a bill that moves the industry to self-regulation, or do you see this more as a new layer of safety being imposed upon an existing regulatory structure?

[Rich Gage]

I'll respond to that.

Essentially, that is correct. It is an additional layer. But I would also describe the relationship as a partnership relationship, a shared responsibility relationship with Transport Canada. This is a program that relies on several groups and parties to contribute to the program. Self-regulation is not what we do, by any stretch of the imagination. It is most certainly, though, a shared responsibility with Transport Canada, and we're quite comfortable with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Barone.

[Sam Barone]

Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt in our minds, as an industry, that the oversight of Transport Canada, when it comes to safety, will continue, and it will be part of the system. Actually, if anything, we're asking for another layer of oversight to that end in terms of the objectives of the bill. Canada has always been, Mr. Chairman, a leader in terms of innovation in aviation, whether it's technology or regulatory frameworks and institutional arrangements, and this is an example of it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Jones.

[Fred Jones]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree with the comments of Mr. Barone and Mr. Gage. The only thing I wanted to add was that this isn't evolution—it's a culture change.

Some of the skepticism that I hear about safety management systems from members of this committee was articulated by members of the aviation community eight or nine years ago when we first became engaged in the process. This has involved a considerable investment of resources for the aviation community. All certificate holders are investing in it. There is a considerable spin-up time required, not only for companies but also for their employees, but it does entail more responsibility, and it entails more liability for certificate holders.

The international community is moving in this direction; it's not just Canada. Canada has been a leader in this area. We found it necessary to move off the safety plateau we were on for years and improve it. It's taken some time for the aviation community to spin up to this concept, but we believe this is the way of doing it. Safety management systems are the next way of depressing our accident record even further.

[Phil Benson]

To be clear, there are lots of parts or portions of the SMS and SEMS systems that are not of grave concern. When I talk about deregulation and soft regulation, we're talking in part about the process. I'll give some examples, just to make it clear.

Why is it when a health and safety issue is raised by Teamsters Canada surrounding the new retinal pictures of eyes that are taken, it takes nine months to respond, and I'm still waiting for a letter? Why is it, when you're talking about hours of service and regulation of how people work—which is science dealt with in both air and rail—it is derailed because in the process the companies are not desirous of it? Why is it, when it's something dealing with a company, that it's dealt with immediately in front of this process?

We're talking about SMS and SEMS, so there's a whole bunch of stuff. Fine, but when we're talking about workers' health and safety concerns for workers, we'd like it to be balanced; in our experience, the process at this particular time is not balanced.

Being part of that process is what this legislation is going to empower. We're currently waiting for—I can go on—

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Benson, my time is really short. I have probably only a minute left.

I'm not disputing what you're saying. The problem is that Bill C-6 is not addressing occupational health and safety; it is addressing air safety.

I'm getting back to the focus here. Some of your brothers were here at the table earlier, two other unions, and it appeared that they were the only ones who were really opposed to Bill C-6. We've had a raft of witnesses, many of whom have as their sole focus the safety of air travel, and they're all supportive of this bill, subject to some minor amendments that we've heard here as well. The government, I believe, has indicated we're willing to continue dialogue on that.

When we're talking about your organization and the other two unions that were before us, clearly there is an issue of individuals fearing they might lose their jobs because of this, because of what you referred to as self-regulation. It certainly came out from the other witnesses.

[Phil Benson]

That's not the issue. I'm not raising that; what I'm raising is simply that fatigue is a safety issue, fatigue is a security issue, but fatigue is not just another safety and security issue to be managed by a management process.

There is biology; there is science. There are diktats that say there are rules that cannot be broken. Within those rules, you can set things like hours of service and how people work—so, yes, it is a safety and security issue.

When people are fatigued, if they're sick, if they're ill, it is a safety and security issue. When one of our members is lying on the floor, hurt, on a plane, the question going through from the pilots, because of the 9/11 rules, is whether they should go back to help her or not. The Canada Labour Code says if you get hurt on the job, you're supposed to be able to get aid. Under the security rules, the question becomes whether there is any potential damage to the plane.

Well, this is part of the process we're talking about that creates these rules. There is need for not having a wide-open box. We say prescriptive rules—and as you know, Teamsters Canada is not obstructive at these meetings. We're quite open to changes that make sense to our employers so that they can be more efficient and create more work, but there are lines to be drawn, and this bill doesn't take it into account.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Pacetti.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you to the witnesses.

I'm a new member here, just filling in.

Mr. Facette, your organization oversees the airports—is that correct?

[Jim Facette]

Yes. The Canadian Airports Council represents 45 airports in Canada, including Canada's eight largest airports. We have a board of directors of 14.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

So how does this bill affect you? The bill is mainly about safety, and you are in charge of security, are you not?