Transport Committee on March 21st, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 40. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, November 7, 2006, we are studying Bill C-6, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Joining us today we have Daniel Maurino—I was actually going to say I've seen you play football a lot, but you're not him—who is the coordinator of flight safety and human factors. He's with the International Civil Aviation Organization.

We do appreciate you taking the time today to be here. I'm sure you may have been informed that we'll ask you to make a brief presentation, and then we'll do rounds of questions from the members.

Please begin.

[Capt Daniel Maurino, Coordinator, Flight Safety and Human Factors, International Civil Aviation Organization]

Thank you, sir, and good afternoon, everybody.

I am about 100 kilos and several millions of dollars short of the real Dan Marino, but I wish I had them.

It is an honour to be here this afternoon. I think I could use my time in a most useful manner by providing the committee with the briefest of pictures as to what ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, is.

I believe the best way to describe ICOA is to say it is the specialized aviation agency of the United Nations. We are part of the UN system. Our basic mandate is set in a document called the Chicago Convention. It's a broad blueprint of how to conduct the business of international civil aviation in a safe, efficient, and orderly manner.

The organization was created back in 1944, in Chicago, so we've been in existence for over 60 years now.

The Chicago Convention is our guiding document. The actual implementation of the actual business of harmonizing safety in international civil aviation is conducted through the application of the requirements in 18 annexes to the convention. Each annex to the convention refers to a particular component of the aviation system. Annex 1 refers to personal licensing, annex 2 refers to rules of the air, annex 3 refers to meteorology, and so on and so forth.

Our basic job, on a day-to-day basis, is keeping these annexes to the convention up to date. These annexes define the standards and recommended practices that states have to follow in order to be members of this universal partnership.

The important thing to highlight here is that as long as a state is involved in international aviation operations, the state in question has to follow the standards in the different annexes. The states may file differences with the standards in the annexes, but it's not a ticket out of compliance. The differences can only be applied for domestic operations. The moment you're engaged in international operations, you must follow these standards.

The subject of interest to this committee, or at least to this session, safety management systems, is contained in standards that are included in three of these annexes. They are annex 6, which refers to the international operation of aircraft; annex 11, which refers to air traffic services, and that includes both air traffic control and air traffic management; and lastly, annex 14, which deals with aerodromes.

In order to implement these standards, we publish a diversity of materials, including manuals and circulars, and occasionally we get involved in training, as in the case of safety management systems.

My closing remark is to re-emphasize the point that compliance with this standard, this universal standard, is not something you might or might not elect to do; you have to do it. So there's quite a force behind these standards.

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you very much, Mr. Maurino.

We'll go to Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you very much. That was one of the briefest presentations we've had. So Mr. Maurino, thank you very much, and welcome to the committee.

The last time Canada was audited by ICAO was in 2005, and it recommended, if I'm correct, that Canada comply with international standards. We had a witness here before, Judge Moshansky, whose opinion was that Transport Canada did not, and that in fact Transport Canada might be in violation of international safety standards. Is that your opinion, too?

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

Well, sir, there are over 15,000 standards in the 18 ICAO annexes. So to say that a particular state does not comply with standards, without being precise as to what standards we're talking about, is a kind of generic statement, and I couldn't comment without having more specifics in front of me.

I would say, nevertheless, as a generic statement, that I don't think that's true at all. I think if there is one particular civil aviation administration that is an example for others to follow, that would be Transport Canada, without any doubt in my mind.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I guess you've kind of pre-empted the subsequent question I was about to ask you, and that is whether there are areas in that report, that you're aware of, that indicate that Transport Canada would be in violation of any of those regulations.

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

No, sir, I'm not aware.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

But we still have other opinions that Canada is the only nation that will have introduced an SMS system without requiring a concurrent, or parallel, system of effective regulatory oversight by aviation inspectors. Is that an accurate statement?

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

I'm not aware of the details of the implementation of SMS in Canada. I am aware of the concept Transport Canada is following in terms of the implementation of SMS. There is nothing in what I know about the SMS concept in Canada that means the elimination, substitution, or what have you in terms of civil aviation inspections. I cannot identify any trend in that direction, sir.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Is it true or not that other countries that have put in an SMS system also have a very viable and effective inspectorate?

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

I believe it's important that we make something clear at the outset. There may be a perception in this committee that SMSs are deployed on a worldwide basis and that Canada is trying to catch up, when it is in fact entirely the opposite situation. Transport Canada is leading the world aviation community in the deployment of SMS in civil aviation.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I thank you for that kind of vote of confidence in our country. I don't think the committee has any preconceived notions. The committee is just trying to get at the root of some of the perceptions that have been raised and some of the opinions that have been expressed here. At the risk of sounding repetitive, I think one of them is that having a regulatory body--an inspectorate system--that's responsible to Transport Canada, the government, that runs parallel to an SMS system to encourage voluntary reporting by the marketplace is the only viable alternative. It's the only viable option for any public anywhere to have and still feel comfortable that aviation security will be handled appropriately. Do you share that or not?

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

I do, without any question, sir. I don't believe that the notion underlying SMS is that you are going to get rid of your regulatory framework and that SMS means throwing your civil aviation regulations, or whatever you want to call them, out the window. The notion of SMS is that it's an additional layer, an additional safety buffer, that builds up on a solid foundation provided by civil aviation regulations.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Maurino, I want to make sure that I don't mislead you or mislead myself. I don't think the committee is for a moment suggesting that we get rid of regulations; I think the issue that's surfaced before this committee has to do with how the inspection of the adherence to those regulations is conducted. It has to do with whether the inspection is solely by the SMS system or whether there is an inspectorate that is responsible to a government body and that runs parallel to this SMS system. Is that the most appropriate thing, or should it be an SMS system like the one being considered under Bill C-6, to eventually do away with the inspectorate?

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

No, I don't think that would be appropriate, sir. An inspectorate force would remain an important part of the overall scheme. It should.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Maurino, what you're saying is important to us and we need to understand you clearly.

If I understand correctly, the ICAO would like safety management systems to be subject at all times to regulatory oversight. In other words, the organization believes that while safety can be assured with SMS, a regulatory oversight regime must nevertheless be in place.

Have I understood your position clearly?

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

Yes, sir, absolutely.

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

I understand. That's where we have a problem with Transport Canada's approach. You audited Transport Canada's operations in 2005. In March of 2006, after safety management systems were put in place, Transport Canada terminated the National Audit Program which targeted the eight largest air carriers in the country. This means that the eight largest air carriers are no longer subject to an annual audit.

I won't ask you a question about that, because perhaps you're embarrassed by Transport Canada's actions, but I don't feel that Transport Canada is being reasonable by terminating an audit program simply because safety management systems were put in place.

Would you agree with me?

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

Yes, sir. In any change there is a transition period. What is the safety picture going to be in 20 or 25 or 30 years' time? Nobody really knows. If SMS evolves to the potential that we hope it will achieve, there may be a scenario in which audits are no longer going to be necessary.

But we're at the beginning. I want to reinforce a notion that I have expressed already. We're talking about SMS as if SMS were a done deal. It is not. We're at the beginning. We haven't even landed. We haven't even started this campaign. I believe that what's going on here is the fate that trailblazers suffer, which is growing pains.

In many aspects, we're learning as we move, and we become wiser as we get additional feedback. What I'm trying to say is that this early in the game, taking any radical measures, whatever they might be, would be unwise. I think the elimination of an inspectorate force, audits, or other conventional mechanisms that have ensured safety in aviation for over sixty years would not be applicable until we are absolutely certain that what we're removing is being replaced by a better system.

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

I totally agree with you. That's what this committee is attempting to find out.

Let me give you an example. As I understand it, the ICAO recommends that airports be inspected every three years. However, in March 2006, Transport Canada terminated its National Audit Program which targeted the five largest airports in Canada.

We don't't want to see safety management systems taking the place of audit and inspection systems until they've proven to be effective. We're concerned that Transport Canada has terminated its National Audit Program at the five largest airports in the country.

I realize that you have not done an analysis, but are you concerned, as we are, that existing audit systems are being replaced before SMS has proven to be effective? Audits were conducted in 2005 and Canada was probably found to be a relatively safe country at the time. Administrative decisions are being made at this time to save money, but in our view, SMS has not yet proven its mettle.

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

I'd like to emphasize the fact that I am by no means an expert in the internal Canadian situation, so I am not familiar with many of the details the committee is presenting. I don't know about Transport Canada doing certain things. I can only present a conceptual view of how an SMS system should operate based on the general direction that ICAO is following.

I can only reiterate what I've already expressed. It is a basic principle in the management of change that you must introduce change gradually, checking that whatever change is introduced does not introduce additional hazards into the system. You do not remove existing defences until you have other defences in place, and so on and so forth.

If you are presenting a scenario in which you tell me that we have a defence in the system that is a tested defence, a proven defence, and we're entirely removing that defence and replacing it with another defence that we have yet to identify as such a valuable defence, my reply would be that that's very poor management of change. But that's a basic kind of conceptual issue, and that's as far as I would dare go on this particular question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian is next.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Maurino, for being here today.

We've got lots of questions to ask. I'll start with a quick one. Did you receive a briefing from Transport Canada officials before you came to this committee?

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

No.