Transport Committee on March 21st, 2007

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Could I ask you again, of your knowledge of the Canadian aviation industry and our safety record and the direction we're moving in, have you heard any indication that there's an intention to reduce the number of inspections so as to negatively impact aviation safety?

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

I'm hearing that here today. I had no knowledge of anything of that nature before today.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Just so you know, there is a suggestion that there had been a general sentiment from the witnesses that in fact that was happening. That's actually not the case. In fact, overwhelmingly, the witnesses who appeared before this committee actually strongly supported Bill C-6, subject to minor modifications, and we're working through some of those. But in fact there was general consensus, except for one or two exceptions, that this is an excellent direction for Canada to go. Just so you know that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Fast.

Monsieur Bélanger.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Maurino, just so I understand the relationship between Transport Canada and the association you're representing today, would your association be consulted among the stakeholders when Transport Canada undertakes a review of its regulatory or legislative air safety framework?

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

You mean if other countries--

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

No. Would Transport Canada consult your association, the International Civil Aviation Organization, when it is proposing to introduce major changes to its regulatory or legislative framework?

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

Only to the extent that those changes would imply a deviation from Canada's international obligations vis-à-vis the annexes of the convention.

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

Do you know, in this case, whether there has been any consultation by this government or previous governments in the preparation of this bill in whatever iteration it has been before Parliament?

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

If the bill doesn't imply, again, a deviation from international standards, there would be no need for Transport Canada to notify ICAO. If we learn about it, it's through the normal exchange of information that we have with working partners, so to speak.

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

Fair enough.

In response to a question from Mr. Fast, he was asking you whether or not there was any indication in the act that's before us that inspections were going to disappear. You responded that no, you didn't see any such measures. Would you also say the same thing in the case of whether there is any assertion in the act that they were not going to disappear? Have you seen any of that in the act?

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

No, sir.

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

Either way?

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

Either way.

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

Okay.

I've got a letter here from.... Are you familiar with Judge Moshansky?

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

Yes, sir, very well.

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

He has a letter to the Minister of Transport, the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, and every member has a copy of this letter, and we'd be delighted to give you one too.

He writes towards the end of his letter--it's a long one:

In summation, the fact that, in March, 2006, Transport Canada suspended its National Audit Program, which is an integral part of any regulatory oversight program, belies any suggestion that an adequate regulatory oversight program is now in place in Canada. In my view, in order to assure the safety of the Canadian air travelling public...

--and I'll say that is the purpose of our being here today--

... in order to assure the safety of the Canadian air travelling public, Bill C-6 must be amended to:

--and he raises two points in particular--

Protect air carrier employees who report safety violations to the regulator with an effective “whistleblower” amendment. Failure to do so will be the Achilles heel of SMS.

Severely limit or rescind the Bill C-6 provision that allows Transport Canada to delegate safety oversight to an industry association.

Would you comment on those recommendations from Judge Moshansky, please?

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

The question of violations, whistle-blowers, and what not, again, is an extremely sensitive issue. I believe there is a big difference between protecting whistle-blowers and protecting sources of safety information. I think that what a safety management system should aim for is to protect the sources of safety information on the understanding that if you protect the source, i.e. if you provide the source of safety information with some kind of qualified protection, you are going to be protecting individuals who report.

I insist that this is a very fine line we're walking here, and it's very easy to go one way or the other--

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

What about his second recommendation?

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

Which was?

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

Which was “severely limit or rescind the Bill C-6 provision that allows Transport Canada to delegate the safety oversight to an industry association.”

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

I believe that a very careful delegation of a number of responsibilities, a controlled delegation, is something we should consider as a future component of the safety management system. Now whether systems are mature for that delegation to date, I wouldn't know, but it should be an objective.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Roy is going to give his five minutes to Monsieur Laframboise.

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

Therein lies the problem, Mr. Maurino. The bill makes no provision for regulatory oversight. We have a bill on SMS without any guarantee of adequate regulatory oversight. That's a fact. Regardless of how you look at it, the bill contains no guarantee that a regulatory oversight regime will be maintained. That's what has us worried.

What you don't understand is that at the same time that this bill was introduced and that we were working on Bill C-6, the National Audit Program was cancelled. Right now, the eight largest airlines are not inspected annually and the five largest airports in Canada are not subject to inspections every three years, as recommended by the ICAO, the reason being that this program was abolished in March 2006. We are concerned about these developments.

I'm not saying that things are going badly. However, since the bill makes no provision for regulatory oversight, there is a danger that one day, the entire safety system will be at risk, because it could be found that ICAO standards are not being respected when the next audit takes place. I believe that will be in five years' time.

We'd like to hear you views on this matter. We don't want to see Canada head down the wrong path because Transport Canada thought SMS would replace regulatory measures.

[Capt Daniel Maurino]

I'm not sure what the question is, sir. But if the situation is that you're telling me Transport Canada has totally eliminated the proficiency check-in and any other requirement in annex 6, without an alternative method of compliance, then it would be a case of a violation of international standards.

I cannot comment, because I don't know if that is the case. I'm not aware of it, and I'm not familiar with the internal situation in Canada.

If it has happened that way, yes, it is a difference, and we should have been notified. If one means of compliance is replaced by an alternative means of compliance, there is ample latitude in the annexes for interpretation. It would be a question of analyzing this alternative method to see whether or not it complies with international standards.