Transport Committee on April 23rd, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 45. 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 Mr. Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Also joining us we have members of the department: Mr. Marc Grégoire, Mr. Merlin Preuss, and Mr. Franz Reinhardt.

I know the minister has an opening comment, and I would ask him to make it. Then we'll move on to committee questions.

Please proceed.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dear colleagues, I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before the committee regarding amendments proposed to Bill C-6, an Act to amend the Aeronautics Act.

I would like to start by pointing out that Canada has one of the safest air transportation networks in the world. Moreover, allow me to draw the attention of committee members to the fact that over the last 10 years, Transport Canada on two occasions voluntarily agreed to have Canada submit to comprehensive International Civil Aviation Organization audits. The most recent audit, undertaken in 2005, showed that Canada had a rate of compliance of 95.5% compared with an average of 68% for other countries. Moreover, Canada was singled out as a model for the 190 other signatory countries.

Safety management systems in particular are an international initiative recognized as the most significant advancement in aviation safety in recent years, and Transport Canada is considered a world leader in this area.

The proposed amendments contained in Bill C-6 are not before Parliament for the purpose of seeking authority to establish SMS. They are intended to maximize the effectiveness of the existing SMS safety framework and to facilitate the implementation of SMS for certificate holders. This would be done by allowing me, as the Minister of Transport, to require, by order, certificate holders to enhance their SMS or take corrective measures regarding the systems when I consider these systems are deficient. As well, the proposed amendments would provide protection provisions for individuals regarding internal reporting of safety information.

SMS is not self-regulation. I repeat: SMS is not self-regulation. It is not deregulation and it has never been about reducing the number of inspectors involved in safety oversight. The number one priority for resource allocation has been, and will continue to be, to ensure effective safety oversight of the industry.

As I have said on many occasions, SMS regulations are an additional layer above and beyond the existing regulations, requiring certificate holders to be more proactive in identifying hazards before they lead to accidents. SMS implementation does demand changes in how some aspects of safety oversight are delivered.

A new SMS enforcement policy has been established by stating clearly that all intentional violations will be vigorously enforced, and we have proposed in Bill C-6 that the maximum level of sanction be significantly increased, as you have seen. If certificate holders are unwilling to develop appropriate corrective measures, or are unable to implement these measures, enforcement action will be vigorously pursued.

The cancellation of the national audit program is also of concern to some and has been used as an example supporting the belief that we are curtailing safety oversight under SMS. In fact, the safety oversight of large operations will continue to be subject to thorough and rigorous safety assessment and validation processes. For the operations outside the SMS safety framework, such as those other than large air carriers, nothing has changed.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, colleagues, I would like to clarify parts of the bill dealing with reporting programs.

As you know, there are two types of voluntary reporting schemes under Bill C-6. They offer different types of protection. The first scheme is a universal and voluntary reporting program which would not involve disciplinary action. All aviation industry stakeholders have access to it and may use it to issue safety-related reports. Individuals are assured that all reports remain anonymous and that the information will not be used against them for law enforcement purposes.

The purpose of this protection is to encourage comprehensive data reporting on safety-related matters, which Transport Canada could not obtain otherwise. I should point out that this protection would not apply when there are accidents of course, criminal offences, or voluntary violations.

The second scheme is directly related to the safety management system and deals with information which could be obtained by Transport Canada when a certificate holder's internal reporting system is being evaluated or audited. This scheme encourages individuals to voluntarily declare safety-related data and provides employers and employees protection against access to information, as well as the assurance that the information will not be used against them. This type of protection also covers data collected from flight recorders.

The purpose is to promote a culture of trust among employers and employees as well as to amass as much safety-related data as possible. Both schemes are based on the same principle. Moreover, once data has been depersonalized, it becomes accessible to all for the purpose of additional analysis and distribution.

That said, safety monitoring reports will, of course, be subject to the provisions of the Access to Information as well as the Privacy Act. Transport Canada has endeavoured to strike a fair balance, to encourage individuals to regularly report data which will serve to enhance air safety without compromising accountability, while maintaining the right to pursue law enforcement action where needed.

Some witnesses have advocated the creation of whistleblower protection. This possibility was studied, but we realized this approach could not be adopted inside the SMS framework if we want to nurture a safety culture. However, whistleblower-like protection exists in the proposed voluntary non-punitive regime described above, and it already exists in the civil aviation issues reporting system, which is open to everyone.

Finally, it's important to mention that these protections will never prevent enforcement action for deliberate and wilful commission of violation for which Transport Canada would have obtained evidence through its own investigations.

In conclusion, I would like to note that we have listened to the testimony provided by various witnesses and the concerns raised by the members around the table. I am happy to inform you that the government will be bringing forward amendments to address these concerns, specifically on the issues I have outlined here today.

I would be pleased to work with this committee in a positive and responsible manner in order to contribute to the consideration and passage of air safety-related legislative provisions in Bill C-6.

I thank you for your attention. Departmental officials and I are now prepared to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We'll have Mr. Volpe.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen. I would also like to thank you, Minister; your presence is much appreciated.

I would like to start with a very direct question.

How much money does your department put aside for regulatory oversight? Since you talked about the national audit program—and you indicated that there was no diminution—how much is available for that?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, colleague.

My officials will be able to either instantaneously give you that answer or—

[Marc Grégoire, Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport]

We thought the main estimates discussion was on May 7, but should you want this earlier, we can write you again with that. I don't have the specific answer, especially for regulatory oversight, on the way we split our budget, but it's a good chunk.

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

We asked for it about two months ago, actually, and we weren't anticipating waiting until the estimates, because the issue—and it's been raised by several witnesses, Mr. Minister, especially after your letter to the National Post—is the safety of airlines in Canada.

We have had several witnesses here—Judge Moshansky, Greg Holbrook, from the Canadian Federal Pilots Association—and I have before me a letter, which I think has been circulated among all committee members, from an owner of a private airline, DaxAir, and they all say, among other things, that this safety management system cannot function properly unless there is a continuation of regulatory oversight and that you and the department have already cut the national audit program.

So the issue of funds is absolutely crucial to understanding where the truth lies. Have you, in fact, cut those programs? Is Judge Moshansky out to lunch? Is Greg Holbrook telling us a lie? Is DaxAir out in left field?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

The fact of the matter, colleague, is that the Canadian Federal Pilots Association welcomes the SMS.

You will recall, also, that when the witness, Mr. Moshansky, I believe, came here, my colleague, Brian Jean, asked the question as to whether, had this system been in place at the time it would have been something that would have been welcomed and would certainly have contributed to the fact that we were a little lax at that time in safety management issues. The answer to that was yes; clearly, safety management systems would have been a godsend had they been in place.

Now specifically to your question, my officials will be getting back to you very shortly so you can have the full information regarding the costing for oversight so you can have a clear appreciation of what—

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

I had a pretty clear appreciation, because when Mr. Jean asked Judge Moshansky the question to which you made reference, I immediately followed it up. I have this according to the Hansard. Judge Moshansky said, “I think it would be very good”. My response was to immediately ask whether he thought it would be very good because he understood that there would be no diminution of funds for the audit program and the regulatory system. And he said that, yes, he took it for granted that of course the government would continue its oversight.

The other witnesses who came before us, Minister, all gave us an indication that the SMS would be useful, provided the government inspectorate would not be diminished.

The issue is not so much that there would be a systems-wide plan for safety, but that the operational component of airline safety would be monitored, regulated, reported on, and appropriately dealt with when there was non-compliance. Nobody has so far been able to give us an indication that this is in fact what's going to happen. I dare say, Mr. Minister, that your departmental officials, who must know what the funds are, because it all relates to dollars and people, still have to do the research on it, by your admission.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Well, the fact of the matter is that I've heard you going around and indicating that there has been a decrease in the number of inspectors. As a matter of fact, that's not the case. The number of inspectors has been maintained at a regular level. For the year 2006-2007, the number of allocated inspector positions is 873. It was the same for 2005-2006. For 2004-2005, it was 876. Basically, if I go back to 2001-2202, it was 866, so contrary to the affirmation that the government is in the midst of—

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

Let me interrupt for a moment, because I've only got a second.

You're repeating numbers—

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

No; I'm sorry. If you want to persist down this road, I am saying you were giving information that is not correct, so I'm reading the correct information into the record.

Now, I've indicated to you, colleague, that regarding the information in terms of the expenses and in terms of what is going to be allocated for oversight, we will get that to you as quickly as possible.

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

I appreciate that.

What I wanted were the figures for 2006-2007. You haven't been able to give us those. What I'd like to do is—

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Colleague, I can quote budget figures—

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

You know, Judge Moshansky....

[Marc Grégoire]

The budget has not changed in the last five years for civil aviation. It is about $140 million, which is the biggest share of safety and security.

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

Monsieur Grégoire, I must protest. Not a few minutes ago you didn't have the numbers, you didn't have the figures, you didn't have the personnel, you didn't have the dollars.

Good heavens.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Order.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Chair, the colleague here asked for specific dollars for oversight.

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

And people.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

My officials are responding, saying to him that the budget for civil aviation security has not changed over the past years. It's at $140 million. That's the response.

Now, you cannot come back and say we weren't able to answer the question before. You asked for specifics; we will give you the specifics, as requested. We will send them to the chairman's office.

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

I will not be chided, Mr. Minister. The figure of $140 million is pretty darn specific, and if he couldn't give it to me three minutes ago, how does he come up with it now?

Now, let me—I still have another minute—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

No, you're out.

Monsieur Laframboise is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, I tend to believe that you are a man of good will. However, you do not have control over all the services provided by your department. This is where we have some reservations. When the International Civil Aviation Organization representative came to speak with us, he said he had done an audit in 2005. So, you are right on that point.

However, with respect to regulatory oversight and inspection, clearly, according to these people, you must maintain the same inspection regime you've always had. When they hear that the inspection regime may be scaled back they start asking questions. I believe the next audit will be quite a bit harsher than the last. And that's fine by us.

However, Mr. Moshansky said—and figures would tend to support him—that there were 1,400 inspectors before 1992. Indeed, when the Liberals took office they reduced that number to 870. Withabout 870 inspectors, you are in compliance. The Liberals are the ones who reduced the number of inspectors.

At a safety and security convention, Mr. Preuss declared that by 2013 half of the inspection services would be reduced by attrition and that there would be fewer resources earmarked for regulatory enforcement. At the time we already believed that there would be fewer resources and that that would effectively lead to fewer inspections. Moreover, the 870 remaining inspectors are not all check pilots. In 1993, there were 450 of them. Today there are 400 of them. If, by 2013, you cut the inspection services by half, there will be fewer and fewer check pilots. That is why companies like DaxAir Inc., and even ICAO safety representatives, are of the view that we should not decrease the regulatory oversight program, the inspection service.

With respect to Mr. Preuss, he repeats his rhetoric, but at the same time, he pressures witnesses not to appear before the committee. You may choose to put up with him, but as far as I'm concerned it's a problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast, on a point of order.