Transport Committee on Feb. 26th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure, and Communities, meeting number 38, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, November 7, 2006, Bill C-6, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Joining us today from the Canadian Airports Council are Mr. Jim Facette and Mr. Fred Jones; from the Air Transport Association of Canada, Mr. Sam Barone and Mr. Les T. Aalders; from the Canadian Business Aviation Association, Rich Gage; and from Teamsters Canada, Mr. Phil Benson. Welcome.

I'm sure it was given to you as information by the clerk that you can pick the order in which you want to start, but you have seven minutes. Once that's complete, we'll go to a series of questioning.

Jim, do you want to start? Thank you.

[Jim Facette, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Airports Council]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed amendments to Canada's Aeronautics Act, the backbone of our aviation regulatory infrastructure here in Canada.

For the most part, Canada's airports support the proposed amendments. This is good legislation. In the attached brief that we will be distributing to committee members, we have outlined some comments and concerns, but today I would like to highlight two important areas in which we believe this legislation can have a tremendously positive impact on the continued safety and importance of aviation in this country: the continued promotion of aeronautics as a mandate of the minister; as well as the promotion of safety management systems and the designation of organizations to shepherd these systems.

Aviation plays an essential role in Canadian society and our ever-increasingly trade-dependent economy. For that reason, we believe it is important that the promotion of aeronautics remain a mandate of the minister, as it is currently in the Aeronautics Act. The proposed amendments would eliminate this, but we believe that would be a mistake.

As Canada and our economy continue to grow, the country's aviation sector grows with it. This requires airports to be more nimble and quicker to adapt to change. Canada's airports believe several of the proposed amendments represent a fresh and welcome approach from the government to achieving this goal.

Safety is the number one concern for Canada's airports. Safety management systems, or SMS, represent a proactive approach to the safety of aviation in Canada by extending a voice to those closest to the action, the thousands of men and women who make our aviation system work every day. Who else is in a better position to identify risks and tender possible solutions than those in the field?

It is important to note that Canada has an extremely safe aviation sector today, and Canada's airports have an excellent safety record. The designation of organizations for regulatory stewardship is a natural evolution of a more mature SMS approach. It will create a more responsive approach to safety in which industry is able to more quickly identify risk and implement changes to mitigate it. Naturally, it should only be available to industry segments that have demonstrated an outstanding safety record and the ability to manage the delegated responsibility.

The designation of organizations will require a change in culture—there is no doubt about that—but it is a welcome change that will allow us as an industry to capitalize on identifying potential problems before they result in a safety incident. We're talking about real, tangible improvements to safety.

At airports each and every day, our men and women see potential problems, problems of which only they are aware. For example, there may be an intersection at a particular airport that pilots or ground workers know to be hazardous. What we have today is a system in which we need to wait until the regulator approves of changes to fix the problem, and it could take months for the necessary changes to airport operation manuals to be approved by the department. It is an inefficient system in which unnecessary delays represent unnecessary safety vulnerabilities and inefficiencies. Yes, regulations in the current system can obstruct safety. Under SMS, which Canada's airports have been working steadily to adopt, we have a system being put into place in which people can report such safety problems without fear of reprisal.

Airports know their businesses and are best placed to know what will improve safety within their organizations. Today they often find themselves constrained by the regulations from implementing safety-related improvements. Surely this is not the government's intent.

Very recently, for example, certification standards for apron marking, signage, and lighting are being removed from Canada's airport certification standards. This has allowed the CAC to develop a best industry practices document on the subject to replace them. They reflect the very best standards available from a variety of airports across Canada.

In time, we could do similar things with other areas of certification standards and with areas of the Canadian aviation regulations. A natural evolution in the SMS approach, the designation of organizations to manage safety standards then allows industry to move much more quickly to plug safety vulnerabilities long before they need to have a safety incident.

The vulnerabilities identified through SMS programs could feed regulatory change. The designated organizations represent another layer of safety oversight, while the minister would still retain the right to audit and inspect the organization and the affected certificate holders.

In conclusion, we would like to reiterate the primary commitment of Canada's airports to safety. We believe that many of the proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act under consideration today will contribute greatly to ensuring Canada's aviation sector continues to enjoy one of the best safety records in the world over the busy years ahead.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Barone.

[Sam Barone, President and Chief Executive Officer, Air Transport Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Honourable members, good afternoon.

I'm very pleased to be here as president of the Air Transport Association of Canada to speak to you on the very important matter of Bill C-6. As you may know, ATAC represents the commercial aviation sector in Canada. Collectively our members account for over 95% of all commercial aviation revenue in Canada.

Nothing unites our members more than our absolute commitment to the safety and security of our passengers. It is the most important thing we do. That's why we're here today to ask you for your support in the passage of Bill C-6. As many of you will recall, this bill has been up for consideration previously under different numbers, but always with the same content. Why? Because this is one of the few examples of legislation with broad support.

ATAC has supported passage of this bill each time because it improves the efficiency and effectiveness of how air carriers manage their safety protocols through safety management systems. The same holds true in the case of Bill C-6. ATAC supports this legislation and urges members of this committee to support it as well.

Safety management systems provide an additional layer of assuredness to the way aviation safety is managed in Canada. They work for carriers and their passengers alike, because they imposes a standardized accountable discipline on the way companies manage their safety protocols. In short, it's a risk management type of approach.

Carriers are mandated to submit SMS plans to Transport Canada for approval. These plans are scrutinized against a very rigid set of criteria to ensure the performance plan is both comprehensive and deliverable. In fact, all of Canada's major carriers routinely use SMS today to manage their safety protocols. Bill C-6 would simply recognize and codify a safety management system that is largely in place today and working quite well.

Having briefly addressed the merits of Bill C-6 and why we think it deserves your support, let me turn to a few areas that could stand improvement. I want to start with the fundamental principle of fostering a climate of open, non-punitive reporting. This is central to the ultimate success of SMS regimes. For this reason we are concerned about the lack of protections in the bill for the integrity of safety data provided to Transport Canada.

While protections are provided to the individuals making initial reports, it is not entirely clear if those same protections are extended to carriers. In this regard, members may want to consider amending proposed section 5.39 to be clearer on this point. After all, we are most interested in identifying and mitigating safety risks as soon as possible. We must encourage companies and individuals alike to be open and transparent about their reporting. This is relevant, not out of concern that real safety issues might get buried, but that eventually over time marginal issues might start to not be identified, especially if a given operator has recently been signalled out for issues that ultimately turn out to be insignificant.

We want all operators from the biggest to the smallest to be as forthcoming as possible about all issues. We don't want to create a situation where individuals may choose to not report, out of concern that it might be held against them.

More broadly, we'd also like to see stricter definitions in this bill. That same proposed section 5.39 refers to integrated management systems. The following provisions chart a very clear and prescriptive course for managing a safety management system. For that reason, integrated management systems should be changed to refer to safety management systems. Bill C-6 is designed to deal with safety management; why not just say so?

We would also like to comment on the recent debate surrounding the prospective lack of inspections. Let me assure this committee that rather than using SMS as a means by which to avoid inspections, ATAC is proposing that the data collection provisions called for in Bill C-6 be amended to require on-site gathering by Transport Canada inspectors.

Provisions that require carriers to submit SMS reports to the department by methods such as email are simply not acceptable. In our view, it compromises the integrity of the data and adds an unnecessary and non-value-added layer to the reporting process. Our members welcome and encourage the direct involvement of Transport Canada in this respect.

Again we encourage members of this committee to consider amending proposed section 5.39 to require on-site data inspection by Transport Canada, rather than requiring carriers to submit it electronically or otherwise. Such a move would ensure the integrity of safety data and foster a direct working relationship between carriers and the regulator.

This issue of data integrity is also the basis for another concern we have with the legislation, namely the lack of clarity surrounding the relationship between this bill and other regulatory frameworks. These include the workplace occupational health and safety regulations, the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board, and even access-to-information laws. In short, we want to ensure that safety data is used by and for safety professionals for the express purpose of improving aviation safety and that the use of such data is consistently applied across government departments.

Again, our perspective on this issue is grounded in our desire to foster a climate of fulsome, open reporting. Safety information must be given priority and protection. For that reason, we're asking members to consider amending the act to exclude the use of aviation safety data for any purpose other than aviation safety. From the perspective of the Access to Information Act and the relationship with the Canada Transportation Accident Investigation Safety Board, we must stress that we have no concern about final reports being made available following a full investigation. However, this has to be undertaken with proper care to avoid needlessly implicating individuals or companies involved.

Indeed, full, fair, and frank investigations are in everyone's interest. What is in no one's interest, however, is to have piecemeal, unaudited information being put into the public domain. This has the potential to cause inappropriate and needless worry among the travelling public and to discourage front-line staff from fully disclosing safety concerns.

If SMS is going to be as effective as possible in fostering a climate of non-punitive open reporting, we must ensure the integrity of the information. The theme of protecting the integrity of the safety data is also broadly applicable to many provisions of the act that give the minister too much discretion in the use of the data collected by operators. Proposed paragraph 5.392(1)(c) allows the minister to disclose any data that he deems relevant in the context of a licence suspension. Proposed section 5.394 allows the minister to enter into any agreement with operators without the use of data from flight data recorders or for general aviation safety purposes. And proposed subsection 5.397(1) allows the minister or his designate to use any aviation data for any purpose they consider necessary for aviation data.

In each of these cases, we think it appropriate for Transport Canada to define in the legislation the circumstances under which aviation data will and won't be used. If, for instance, carriers are assured that commercially sensitive competitive information will be excluded from such uses, these clauses become much more palatable.

In short, the best way to foster a spirit of openness and cooperation is to provide assurances of the integrity of information being requested from carriers by the regulator.

Finally, let me return to the issue of non-punitive reporting. I think we can all agree that it is much better to identify problems and get them fixed than to engage in a game of “gotcha”. From that perspective, we should be concerned about the limits imposed on the use of immunity provisions specified in section 5.396. The waiving of immunity should be based on conditions more specific than the number of times an individual uses protection within a given period of time. I would hate to see a potential safety risk go unreported because an individual has already claimed immunity for an unintentional violation within the last two years.

Let me end, Mr. Chairman, where I started. As much as we are concerned about some of the provisions in the bill, on balance it is good legislation which ought to be passed by this Parliament. This is the third incarnation of this bill, and it is time we moved forward with this important modernization of the Aeronautics Act.

With that I thank you for your time and welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Gage.

[Rich Gage, President and CEO, Canadian Business Aviation Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and honourable members, thank you for allowing me to comment on Bill C-6. Before I do so, allow me to introduce the Canadian Business Aviation Association.

We've been in business for quite some time; in fact, we've been an effective advocacy organization since 1962. We currently have well over 400 members and speak for 272 companies and organizations that operate more than 500 aircraft domestically and internationally. In addition, another 150 companies are members of ours in the manufacturing and support sector of the aviation industry. The CBAA is the voice of business aviation in Canada.

We've been actively engaged throughout the extensive consultation process of amending the Aeronautics Act and have helped lead a wide-ranging group of representatives from government and industry to craft a progressive and modern document. The amendments to the act incorporate proactive and proven management practices, organizational flexibility, broad-based accountability, and a non-punitive reporting system, all of which are designed to improve aviation safety and efficiency.

Of particular interest and importance are the safety management concept and its explicit and comprehensive process for managing risk. The safety management system, or SMS, embeds organization-wide accountability and actions to preclude accidental losses and establishes proactive management tools to identify and control risks prior to their occurrence. It is a documented process that integrates operations and technical systems with the management of financial and human resources to ensure aviation safety.

In conjunction with Transport Canada Civil Aviation, the CBAA has helped lead the aviation industry in the design, development, and implementation of safety management systems, and the creation of performance-based standards for aircraft operators specifically under Canadian Aviation Regulations part VI, subpart 4. To break that down into another more meaningful definition, perhaps, it captures those operators or owners who are operating turbine-powered pressurized aircraft and carrying passengers that are non-commercial.

The CBAA program is supported by all of the 272 CAR section 604 operators. Its recognized advantages are greater organizational participation in aviation safety, increased operational flexibility and effectiveness, and improved administrative efficiency.

CBAA members have more than four years' experience using safety management systems and collectively endorse this method of managing risk. In our assessment, the CBAA program and the use of SMS has enhanced aviation safety for business aircraft operators, eliminated red tape, and reduced administrative costs. During this same period, it should not go unnoticed that business aviation in Canada has grown at an annual rate of 15% to 18%; that is, in the last four years, we’vet doubled our size.

The Canadian aviation community is a world leader in advancing safety initiatives, and Canadian officials, at least in part, have successfully influenced the International Civil Aviation Organization and other national aviation bodies to endorse and implement the concept of safety management systems. SMS will become an international tool in the identification and management of risk.

It should also be noted that 11 national or regional business aviation associations worldwide, representing more than 14,000 business aircraft operators, have sanctioned the Montreal-based International Business Aviation Council's program called International Standards for Business Aircraft Operators. IS-BAO mirrors the CBAA program. It is founded on a safety management system and uses performance-based standards. Such widespread use and recognition of SMS clearly demonstrates its value.

Mr. Chairman, in all respects the CBAA supports the proposed amendments to the Aeronautics Act.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gage.

Mr. Benson is next.

[Phil Benson, Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to all.

Teamsters Canada is a labour organization with more than 125,000 members. Teamsters Canada represents workers in many sectors, including all areas of transport, air, rail, road, and ports, and also in other sectors, such as retail, motion pictures, breweries, soft drinks, construction, dairy, warehousing. We're also affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which has 1.5 million members across North America. We thank this committee for allowing us to participate in the review of Bill C-6.

Most of the bill appears to be housekeeping or updating of the current legislation, bringing it up to current requirements. Though there may be some need for improvements, our comments will be limited to those areas of the bill that in our opinion may overreach the goal of the legislation, affecting the safety and security of the industry.

The management systems proposed by the bill, one would think, are best corporate practices that do not need legislative approval. As a vision, however, we have concerns that proposals are not inconsequential and may lead to unsatisfactory results. The management system legislative framework will be fleshed out by regulation, a regulatory process that is heavily influenced by both the transport department's policy promoting efficiency and the economy, and the application of a so-called “smart regulatory process”. This legislation may lead to effective deregulation, self-regulation; if that's desired, then the legislation should clearly state it.

It has been claimed that the airline industry would never do anything to compromise safety and security—the legislation regulatory process under this bill will certainly test that premise—and claims the industry does not need prescriptive rules. Indeed, the pressures of the market and the bottom line would never produce a car that blew up, tires that blew out, materials that caused illnesses, prescription drugs that did more harm than good, or companies that push workers beyond what biology allows.

We have prescriptive rules in place because it is a company's job to make money and the government's job to govern. One does not let the fox look after the chicken coop. Canadians deserve to know that the government is responsible for the safety and security of the public. No matter what the legislation, if an incident occurs, it will not be the CEO of a company or representative of an industry association who will bear the brunt; ministers do, because that's what members of Parliament demand, and that's what the Canadian public demands.

Paragraph 4.9(v) would permit fatigue management procedures. Again, one would expect that management of fatigue involves best corporate practices that do not need legislative approval. Clearly, fatigue is not just another safety and security risk that can be managed. Each sector in the transportation industry may have different processes or needs to function in their market niche. However, the biology of workers does not change, nor does the need for prescriptive rules to ensure that minimum standards apply. Standards that comply with sleep science, not the needs of the industry, are the bottom line of companies.

Hours of service of flight attendants was derailed under the existing regulatory process. The science is being ignored and minimum safeguards are not in place now, and we feel it may be more difficult to achieve if the legislation passes unchanged. The issue of hours of service for transportation workers was dealt with in the Arthurs report on part III of the Canada Labour Code. We agree with the recommendations that Labour Canada should participate or take the lead for setting hours of work for transportation workers. Flight attendants and all workers in the aviation industry deserve the same rights as any workers—health and sanitation breaks, breaks between assignments, time to eat.

Rotational shifts and fatigue are not just safety and security risks to manage. The current regulatory process examined how it affects the planes in operation, and not how it affects workers' lives and their health and safety. We disagree with that approach. These issues are fundamental health and safety workplace issues governed by the Canada Labour Code, and it should not be that if one chooses to work in the transportation industry, they do not apply.

We leave it to the committee to imagine where Bill C-6 will take us. We're not always comfortable with the current regulatory process, though we will admit at times it does make sense and outcomes can be achieved that are mutually satisfactory to all in the industry. We are certain Canadians will not be comfortable with where Bill C-6 may lead. Teamsters Canada submits that this bill needs some work before it is passed.

Thank you, and I'm ready for any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Benson.

Monsieur Bélanger.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I start, there's something I want to put on the record, if you don't mind.

There was a story in The Canadian Press last Thursday about a Transport Canada official trying to restrict committee witnesses. In it, Mr. Julian and Monsieur Laframboise are quoted, and that's fine. I was also interviewed for that story, yet what I said does not appear. I don't know if it was the reporter or an editor; however, whatever that may be, I thought it should be on the record. It wasn't very newsworthy, I recognize that, but what I said was that the allegations that were made vis-à-vis a senior Transport Canada official were just that. This committee had indicated that it would ask that individual to appear again, and until that appearance before committee and the chance for that individual to give his side of the story, I thought best that we should hold off on our judgment. That is what I said to the reporter. That was not reported.

I thought it was important enough to be put on the record, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your indulgence.

Before I go to questions, there are two requests. There are many requests outstanding, Mr. Chairman.

First, I'd ask for a note on what are the current legal and regulatory underpinnings of the SMS. I think that information might be timely if we could get it soon, before the break, for sure.

Secondly, Transport Canada was to offer us the bill as it is, the law as it is, plus the bill, and how they overlap. We still haven't seen that. Now, when the witness committed to giving us that, it wasn't that they had to prepare it; it was a document they already had. So I'm just wondering what's taking so long to get it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Barone, you made a series of suggestions and expressed serious concerns on amendments to the bill before us. In the preparatory work that has gone on for a decade, I gather, for this version or previous ones that may or may not be the same—I haven't verified that—I presume you've been consulted by Transport Canada officials, or you've had a chance to discuss with them your concerns. Is my presumption correct?

[Sam Barone]

Do we consult with Transport Canada on this bill? We consult with Transport Canada as the lead regulator of our industry on this bill and many other bills that come before Parliament, sir.

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

Thank you.

Did you make these very recommendations to Transport Canada at any time?

[Sam Barone]

We have always put our position forward, consistent with what we have said here today.

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

Have they given reasons to you on why they've not been accepted?

[Sam Barone]

I have not been given any reasons myself, although my staff has been involved with this process longer than I have.

[Les T. Aalders, Vice-President, Engineering and Maintenance, Air Transport Association of Canada]

Mr. Chairman, Transport Canada and ATAC have been involved in these discussions through the CARAC process, which I'm sure you're familiar with.

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

No, I'm not.

[Les T. Aalders]

ATAC is a very strong participant within the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council, as are other industry and bargaining unit memberships. We have commented on the proposals, and at this stage we have found that some of the comments we have made at the various stages have not been taken as fully into account as we would have liked to have seen. That is why, today, we are proposing some additional changes.

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

I don't know if you have the capacity to do so, but if you do have the capacity, would you be inclined to propose actual wordings that would suit you and to submit them to this committee for their attention?

[Les T. Aalders]

Yes.

[Sam Barone]

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

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

Thank you. Perhaps if you could do that by mid-March, it might be very useful.

Mr. Facette, for the time remaining, I'd like to have a discussion on designated organizations. What are they?

[Jim Facette]

A designated organization would be an organization that, in Transport Canada's opinion, has the capacity to carry out a safety management system. Right now in Canada, there is one in aviation, that's the CBAA. They are a designated organization under this act, if you applied this act today.

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

In your opinion, what could they be under this act?

[Jim Facette]

They could be airport authorities.