Evidence of meeting #45 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was sms.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
I could get the numbers, but all those files that were—
4:05 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
There are probably 100 files of companies that are governed by SMS, and those files were converted through the new SMS enforcement policy for only those companies. There are not many companies now, because it's only the 705, the big carriers, and the part V servicing the big carriers. So there are not that many files. I'd be surprised if there were 100.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
So perhaps 100 files were marked “no further action to be taken”. These were safety violations that were in the process of being investigated by Transport Canada.
4:05 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
They were investigated by enforcement inspectors and were transferred to offices of primary interest—people accountable, managers responsible for those certificate holders under SMS, to continue the other type of SMS enforcement investigation.
That's not really closure of a file.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
They were marked by Transport Canada “no further action to be taken”. Transport Canada is not taking further action on any of those 100 safety violations, no matter how serious those safety violations were. Canadians are travelling on these planes, so it's not something you should treat superficially or lightly.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon Conservative Pontiac, QC
This is not being treated superficially. You are deliberately leaving the impression here that because the files are closed there's no action being taken. That is not correct. Action is being taken through a systems management security program. That's what we're doing and that's where we're shifting.
Your first question, regarding risk assessment reduction of regulation, is a highly technical one. I will let Mr. Preuss answer that. But I want to reassure people around here that we are not closing files that haven't been completed—that's not true.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
I'm going to remark on the focus inspection program, which is a selected final risk control measure. The implementation part of that, to define the focus inspection program, was due January to March of last year, with implementation March 31. The personal accountability implementation team—and to my knowledge this is where it's applicable—is already being used.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister, for attending.
The testimony around this table and the discussion that we've just heard seems to focus almost exclusively on the number of inspectors that Transport Canada has to do enforcement to ensure that we have a safe civil aviation program. I'm not sure that is the prime or the only factor to consider. I'm not sure, and I'm going to get your answer on that.
I'd like to use an analogy. Back 50 years ago, when I was a very young child, when an automobile mechanic wanted to fix a car they would do so almost exclusively by manual means. Today, 50 years later, you bring your car into the shop and they have all of these electronic diagnostic tools. In many cases it takes much less time to figure out what's wrong with the car and to fix it.
Somehow the impression that's been left by the opposition members at this table is that the only thing that drives safety management levels is the number of bodies we've got employed. First of all, Mr. Minister, you and your staff members have been saying very clearly that in fact the number of inspectors has not gone down. But even if it had, I'd like you to answer whether or not that is the sole factor we should consider when we're determining air safety in our country.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon Conservative Pontiac, QC
The answer is that the changes we're proposing will greatly improve aviation safety in the country. Safety management systems, I've said it before, were put in place to add an additional, an extra—I don't know how to say it differently—layer of regulations above and beyond the existing regulations. This is the issue that's at hand.
We are not, I repeat, taking away from what is already there. We have indicated we are going to correct attrition. We have indicated that, yes, we have the same level and the same number of people carrying out inspection. We are looking at amendments to reassure the committee members to that effect. We've got the Canadian pilots association, who welcomed SMS. The airline industry officials have come here and they've welcomed the safety management systems that are put in place.
The accident rate continues on a downward trend, and it's expected that SMS will further reduce the accident rate. We're committed not only to maintaining, Mr. Fast, but also improving upon the record, and accident prevention continues to be the primary focus of Transport Canada's safety efforts. That's the long and the short of it.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
It's not just the number of bodies you employ to do inspections that drives whether we have a safe aviation system.
April 23rd, 2007 / 4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you.
I've read through Bill C-6, and there's been a suggestion around this table on numerous occasions that somehow Bill C-6 is taking away from the current regulatory oversight that is there. I've read this bill through a number of times, and I don't see that in there.
I' m wondering, first of all, whether you believe Bill C-6 takes away from the current regulatory oversight. Secondly, Mr. Minister, the amendments you intend to bring forward, are they specifically going to address that concern that's been raised by a number of members of this committee?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon Conservative Pontiac, QC
I certainly don't believe that's the case as I propose the bill, but if we need to be able to specify our intention, we're open to that, to be able to make sure that there is, as we say in French, aucune équivoque as to the government's intention in this regard. Safety is uppermost.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you.
Several months ago there was a discussion around this table regarding the difference between the immunity provisions of Bill C-6 and whistle-blowing legislation, and I believe the inspectors' unions felt that whistle-blowing legislation was more appropriate. Your staff made it very clear that the immunity provisions are essential to ensure that SMS works. You touched on that earlier in your discussions. Could you clarify again the distinction between the two: immunity and whistle-blower? And why is it that we prefer immunity to whistle-blowing legislation?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Cannon Conservative Pontiac, QC
Before I pass it over, the general feeling here is that as we are not personalizing these issues, other than the exceptions I've mentioned before in my intervention, we want to be able to have full divulgence of any incidents that take place to be able to have our data bank and be able to draw the information that is essential to be able to continue to pursue our safety measures. So we feel that this culture has to be instilled. It's not a whistle-blowing way of doing things, clearly; you're absolutely right on that. But we feel if we can get that information, if we're in a position to make sure our database contains information that comes from everybody in the industry, everybody in that community, it will only better safety, aviation security, in the coming months.
Mr. Reinhardt.
4:10 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Under SMS, we believe if we want the employees and the employers to work hand in hand and obtain the information necessary to be proactive, do trained analysis, and prevent further or bigger accidents or occurrences, we want them to report. So it would be counter to the philosophy of SMS to adopt whistle-blowing legislation.
What is a bit ironic is that members of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association will be covered by whistle-blowing legislation because they are federal public servants working for Transport Canada and they have their own disclosure bill. So I don't think they'll have any more problems with respect to whistle-blowing legislation. And also there is the CAIRS, which we call the civil aviation issues reporting system, which allows everybody to report, ask everything they want, and retain anonymity at the same time.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
We believe so.
