Transport Committee on May 14th, 2007

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

I'm not very good at it; I've never been able to continue holding my breath.

I just want to address the issue of the government amendments, Mr. Chair, very quickly.

I listened attentively to all of the questions, to be very blunt. I listened to the witnesses and met witnesses afterwards, and some other people who had some interest in it. Then I worked these amendments together and submitted them to the department last week, expecting them to be done. But it is a bureaucracy and they have to check, I'm sure, with five different levels of people before getting them back to me, and they've done that. My understanding is that the amendments have been approved in the form they were provided. So I think all members will be comfortable with them.

The purpose of that, Mr. Chair, bluntly, was just to get a better piece of legislation that all members would agree would keep Canadians safe and secure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe, for five minutes.

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

Great. Thank you very much.

Mr. Reinhardt, you heard what I had to say in my preamble. I wasn't meaning any disrespect to anybody, but as I watched you over there, I'm sure you and Mr. Preuss must have been shocked to hear somebody call you liars. They weren't referring to you as individuals, but as officials crafting a piece of legislation that, in the view of at least some people in the field, is essentially—and, again, I hope I don't misinterpret this—going to devolve the authority everybody expects you to discharge for Canadian safety and security; and, secondly, that you really don't have a handle on, or don't want to enforce, your regulations. It doesn't matter how much you don't want to develop or apply them, they are yours. What I mean by that is, yours as a government—and ours collectively.

I thought you were shocked, and I didn't think you were feigning shock. Are we wrong to move ourselves back a step and say, hold on, should this legislation go through?

[Franz Reinhardt, Director, Regulatory Services, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport]

Well, with this legislation, Mr. Volpe, what we're proposing is improvement in aviation safety in general. What you heard today was information regarding specific situations that sometimes was taken out of context. I'm happy that we've been given the opportunity to answer to this.

Mr. Danford was talking about an accident that happened about 10 years ago. There was an accident, yes. Afterwards, the pilot had a couple of violations. If you look, he flew for five or six years without any mention on his file. Things were going well. Unfortunately, there was another accident.

At that time, because of international requirements with respect to accident investigations, we had an agreement with the Transportation Safety Board that we would not get involved in a parallel regulatory investigation until the TSB, which actually is the investigative authority in Canada, had finished their investigation. When they finished their investigation, we would start a parallel investigation. And that's what we did in that case. That's the reason we were not involved earlier.

Later on, there was a change in policy, and we decided to immediately launch a parallel investigation whenever there was an accident, and we've been doing that since. Those things were about 10 years ago, and there has been improvement made since that time.

Now, Mr. Danford was talking about Air Transat, and he said that SMS didn't work. Well, you know, what's interesting is that Air Transat was the trigger for us to start establishing SMS. When the Air Transat accident, or incident, happened, there was no such thing as SMS. We did investigate and we did charge Air Transat with a $250,000 fine. I remember, because I was there. There was an investigation and there was a big fine levied. After that, we more or less told Air Transat that as a condition of continuing operations, even before we drafted regulations, we would establish a pilot SMS project with them. This was a condition for us to allow them to continue their operations. And they did, and it went very well. After that, we mandated SMS through our regulations.

There was no SMS at the time of the Air Transat incident, so that information was a little bit inaccurate.

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

Mr. Reinhardt, the other thing that came out of those presentations was, for me, essentially, a desire on the part of people in the field to have the regulator, whose presence would be feared and respected, actually in the field all the time. I kept thinking about those two terms, those two words, through virtually everything the two presenters indicated. Industry itself and the travelling public itself want to have that environment and that atmosphere.

I thought that while I could accept the perception that the more data you have, the more you build a fuller picture of the trends--what could go wrong, what does go wrong, and what you need to correct it--you need to have fear and respect in the field. The travelling public, including those who operate aircraft, whether privately or with other associations, need to have it in order to go to work every day with a clear conscience.

I only just started going over your amendments, and I don't know whether the ones that are coming are going to address that. But you appear, in the past, to have contradicted that particular view. You thought, in fact, that the amassing of evidence would be sufficient to establish a system that everybody would accept, whereas the people who are among the people in the field told us in no uncertain terms this afternoon, hey, we don't want any part of that; unless the regulator is there instilling fear and respect, nothing's going to work.

[Franz Reinhardt]

We fully agree with you that SMS is good--and everybody else agrees--but we also need to have safety oversight. We have safety oversight now, and many of the people who have testified may not have seen what we've done since we established SMS. We now have new policies, and there are other ways of inspecting, auditing, assessing, and validating all those carriers and their systems. So we recognize that legitimate concern.

When Minister Cannon testified two weeks ago, he told you we were coming forward with at least three specific amendments. The first one is to reassure the Canadian public that there will be continuous safety oversight by using inspectors to carry out inspections in the field. That's something that is coming.

From my understanding of this committee when I listened to all the testimony and questions from members, the designated third party to certify is a concern. We realize that. We already gave our commitment verbally that it was never our intention to ask the Air Transport Association of Canada to certify Air Canada or WestJet. Now we have to put our money where our mouth is. We're going to put it in writing, and Minister Cannon has announced that we will make an amendment saying that there will be a safety study. He believes it will have to be a very low-risk activity---and also non-fare-paying air transportation of passengers. So I think this will go a long way.

The next concern was on the protection provisions for the internal SMS reporting, as well as the universal voluntary, non-punitive reporting process. The pilots' union asked us to give them more protection than we were giving. I've heard some other unions, more labour-related unions, asking for no protection at all for whistle-blowers. We believe we have struck the right balance. We even brought forward a couple of new amendments there.

In an SMS environment we want employees to work with employers. My colleagues and I feel that a whistle-blower program, where people could tattle-tale willy-nilly, without really having substantiated information against their employer, would be negative. That's the danger. We want people to work together, and unless the whistle-blower program made very important punitive provisions against people making false reports, or things of that nature, I believe it would be difficult. So we're not favouring that approach.

With the protections we're giving, we believe that people will bring forward as much safety information as possible. We don't think having a whistle-blower program would add to that information. On the contrary, I think it would turn off the tap and less information would come in between the employer and employee. It's not because we're against it; we just want to get the best system possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

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

Please continue, Mr. Reinhardt. From the outset, my problem has been the major difference between the views of Transport Canada's administration, whom you represent, and our objectives as legislators. It just wasn't clear to me.

From the beginning, I've been having a hard time understanding your failure to appreciate that we need a ground surveillance system in order for the safety management system to be effective. We've heard a range of comments from you and from your colleagues to the effect that the overall number of pilots will be reduced and that some attrition will be take place. We never said that pilots would be replaced, or kept on staff or whatever. We have the transcripts of all of the speeches delivered. Transport Canada seemed to think that SMS would replace ground surveillance and that economies of scale would be realized. That's precisely the feeling I had when I read your speeches and listened to your comments. However, that is not at all the intent of the legislation.

You're telling us today that the government's proposed amendments are aimed at maintaining a ground surveillance system that conforms to the wishes of the politicians. We want some assurances that no company, regardless of its name, is able to...You've seen it happen. One day, they are very wealthy and within six months, they have become impoverished. We do not want them to shoulder the responsibility of ensuring the safety of our constituents. What you're saying appears to be...

[Franz Reinhardt]

Mr. Laframboise, it has always been our intention to continue to have inspectors ensure safety by carrying out inspections, even with SMS. That's always been our intention. However, since we detected a certain amount of apprehension on the part of committee members and the general public, the minister decided to bring in an amendment to make it clear that sufficient resources will be in place to provide safety oversight. This is legitimate.

Of course, if down the road we find ourselves with fewer resources through attrition, in spite of our best efforts to obtain more resources and to hire more inspectors...There's no question that SMS is far more efficient than the current system in place. It helps to give us a complete picture of the carrier. Therefore, even if there are fewer inspectors, we still have better oversight. In the past, we needed many people to attend to a range of details. However, show me where I said that there would be staff cuts. I never said that.

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

Except you just admitted that there could be some downsizing.

[Franz Reinhardt]

No. I said that if ever there was a reduction in personnel—

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

If ever there were fewer inspectors, with the proposed system—

[Franz Reinhardt]

It would be a better system.

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

The culture of your—

[Franz Reinhardt]

What I'm saying to you, Mr. Laframboise, is that we have no intention of reducing personnel levels. However, if we did happen to find ourselves with a reduced workforce, then this is a system that—

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

Except that you've quickly assessed the situation.

[Franz Reinhardt]

You have to understand that we've been working on this for several years now.

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

What floors me each time is that you seem to be at cross-purposes with the public. However, it's your choice. You're in charge of managing Transport Canada.

My second question concerns designated organizations. I see that you want to oversee them in some way. Why do you insist on having designated organizations? I can understand wanting to take away some of their powers or limit their authority, but why do we even need them in the first place? Can you honestly explain that to me?

[Franz Reinhardt]

Some of the activities in the aeronautics industry are not even regulated at the present time. Having designated organizations could lead to increased regulatory oversight in the case of these activities. Consider, for example,ultralight aircraft or small business jets. In the United States and around the world, these aircraft are not regulated. They are part of the aviation industry in general, as defined in part 91 of the United States' General Operating and Flight Rules.

Canada goes much further. The Canadian Business Aviation Association has the power to enact certain regulations and standards governing its own operations. It does not yet operate as a designated organization. Eventually, it could become one, but other regulations would then apply. However, around the wold, members of this association are not regulated. We're taking it a step further by giving them responsibility for business aviation operations. We could do the same with ultralight aircraft operators, amateur pilots and skydivers. People in this industry have the expertise needed to carry out improved oversight operations. That is your explanation.

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

Currently, Transport Canada must carry out surveillance operations in the absence of such organizations.

[Franz Reinhardt]

Some areas are not regulated at all at the present time, Mr. Laframboise. Take ultralight aircraft, for example. All that is required is a licence—

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

I'm talking about business jets, among other things. Is this area regulated?

[Franz Reinhardt]

There are basic regulations governing pilot licensing, aircraft certificates and airworthiness. These areas have always been regulated. As I said, nothing is changing. However, the private aviation industry is not subject to the same kind of regulations as a commercial carrier like Air Canada.

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

Under the proposed legislation, accreditation papers, for example, could then be issued by their association.

[Franz Reinhardt]

That's correct.