Transport Committee on Feb. 28th, 2007

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

Thank you very much. I apologize for not having been here for the beginning of your statement.

Mr. Gage, from the Canadian Business Aviation Association, appeared before our committee last week. His association is probably one of the first designated organizations. Even the industry appears to be recognizing that, pursuant to clause 12. This clause creates a problem for me, and the same goes for you.

Mr. Gage told us that his business supervises the safety management systems of approximately 140 companies that are not airlines. It has the authority to certify a part of the operations.

I asked Mr. Gage if Transport Canada had inspected his business. He answered that the department had carried out an inspection and that there would be a second one. His company has been in business since 2003 and this second inspection will take place in 2007. In fact, it is my impression that it is his appearance before the committee that is behind this second inspection.

Do you find that to be reasonable? Is that really, with C-6, the situation that Transport Canada is proposing, a situation that will come to pass if we do not see to things right away?

[Virgil P. Moshansky]

Well, it seems to me there's going to be a period of--what was it?--four years between inspections. When you implement a new regime such as this, I would think in the early stages there should be more frequent inspections of the operation.

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

With regard to these famous designated organizations, for example the Canadian Business Aviation Association, I am in favour of your recommendation that clause 12 be removed. I believe that each and every air transport company should be directly supervised by Transport Canada and not by an intermediary. These companies could bring about problems for civil aviation.

Do you believe that clause 12 should be abolished?

[Virgil P. Moshansky]

No, I don't think clause 12 should be abolished. As I stated earlier, I think SMS is a good thing, but it must be accompanied by a parallel system of regulatory oversight. This has to be there in order to comply with international law, to which Canada is a subscriber.

The ICAO standard requires operational oversight. So does the European Union--25 countries. They all require operational oversight of SMS. So how does Canada expect to lead the world by going it alone? I don't know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Your comments today, Justice Moshansky, have been very much a wake-up call. As you mentioned, in 1989 there were prophetic warnings going to Transport Canada at that time. They weren't heeded, and we had the result of the tragedy of Dryden.

We have similar prophetic warnings coming forth now. So just to finalize, I have some quick questions. I'll give all of them to you.

What should the government be doing in reaction to these prophetic warnings that we're hearing from the aviation inspectors, as you said yourself, the folks who know aviation safety best?

Secondly, around the issue of whistle-blowing, there is no protection for employees, but within the legislation there is what some people have termed a “get out of jail free” card for CEOs. Does that detract from safety, where the employees have to worry about their jobs when the CEOs can basically get off scot-free?

And my final question: Have we just been lucky that a major accident has not occurred, despite the cutbacks we've been seeing over the past year?

[Virgil P. Moshansky]

Your last point is interesting. I was reviewing the 2005-06 Transportation Safety Board annual report to Parliament on occurrences, investigations, and safety action. It indicates that the number of accidents in 2005 increased by 5% from both the 1,945 accidents reported in 2004, and the 2002-2004 annual average of 1,946 accidents. So we had an increase by 5% in 2005 from what the situation was in 2001, in both the numbers and the average in those years.

The other report I found of interest was the TSB report for December 2006 on aviation occurrence and casualty statistics. It indicates there were seven airliner accidents in Canada in 2006. There was a total of 262 accidents for Canadian-registered aircraft, of which 31 were fatal.

It is really interesting that there was a total of 823 all-aircraft reportable incidents. This is a figure you don't hear too many people talking about. In my view, an incident can be a more important indicator of the state of safety in the aviation system than an actual accident. We've had almost three incidents per day. These have involved such things as near-misses, separation between aircraft, and risk of collision. There were 280 declared emergencies, 136 engine failures, 171 loss of separation, 103 smoke-fire incidents, and over 150 other incidents.

So I think that's a very important area that is usually neglected when you talk about the state of aviation safety.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again I want to thank you so much for your time here today.

I'm not sure if you're aware of or have had a chance to look at some of the investments that have taken place in the last eight or nine months, particularly in security. Obviously this new Conservative government has seen some of the issues. For instance, since the ministerial order that was issued at the beginning of last summer, rail accidents have gone down by 25% in 2006 compared to 2005.

I wonder if you have seen some of the investments this government has made. There's been $95 million in rail and urban transit security, $26 million in air cargo security, $303 million in border security strategies, $930 million in marine security, $101 million in border guard security, and another $133 million over two years to CATSA.

Not to throw money at an issue, but do you think this government is going in the right direction to deal with issues like that, with ministerial orders and money in particular areas of high need, such as the airlines...and CN accidents over rail? Do you think that's the right step to take?

Another one is the Railway Safety Act review, to which this government has just appointed a board. Do you think that's the right step to take to go forward from here?

[Virgil P. Moshansky]

I don't see how it could hurt. As a matter of fact, I appeared before the railway review commission at their invitation after I was done with Dryden. On three separate occasions they wanted some advice, and I was very glad to accommodate them. Anything that has to do with improving the state of safety in any of the transport mediums has to be a good thing.

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

It's quite remarkable that the number of accidents has gone down by 25% in rail, for instance, in just a year or two.

[Virgil P. Moshansky]

You had the big one in Wabamun.

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

We sure did, sir, in my home province of Alberta. It was not at all attractive to any of us.

[Virgil P. Moshansky]

There was a bad one in B.C. recently.

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

It is contained, and even the chemicals are in a ditch and contained. We had a report this morning. It happened four kilometres from Kicking Horse Pass.

[Virgil P. Moshansky]

That's part of the security effort.

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

Yes, sir.

Thanks for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you very much, Mr. Moshansky. Your information has been great. I hope that some of the things you'll see come out of this committee will reflect the comments you've made today.

[Virgil P. Moshansky]

Thank you very much for listening.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I appreciate your accommodating the committee.

[Virgil P. Moshansky]

It was a pleasure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're going to suspend briefly and then come back with committee business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Welcome back.

Before we get to Monsieur Laframboise, I want to advise the committee that the statistics requested from Transport Canada should be in your offices by the time you get there. That is being done by paper.

The other questions on the SMS and the overlay on the two regimes should be in your offices electronically. If they're not, please let Mark know.

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my motion is simply to ask Mr. Preuss to come and explain himself before the committee.

The Canadian Federal Pilots Association made important revelations according to which pressures were exerted upon it in order for it to not appear before the committee.

This deserves to be discussed with him. It is intolerable that representatives or employees or anyone else for that matter be pressured to not appear before the committee.

I would like to know the score. This is why I would like us to find the time to meet with Mr. Preuss.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.