Transport Committee on Nov. 30th, 2009

[Carlos DaCosta]

I'm not so sure it's escalating out of control, but what I see is that it's starting to grow. What the mechanics are telling me is that it's getting worse by the day, by the week. There's no longer that atmosphere that was present in the past. It is a new way of doing business, and it's strictly about business. Less importance is being placed on safety. It is to the point where something may happen in the future. I know mechanics will do whatever they can to prevent something from happening, but if I make a little mistake and he doesn't pick it up, and he takes over, and another takes over, then the next thing you know it escalates into a big accident. That's what we don't want.

[Christine Collins]

The first group given SMS full responsibility was the Canadian Business Aviation Association. Even in the Transportation Safety Board investigation report they raised concerns about why they delegated and contracted out. The number one concern within the Transportation Safety Board report was liability.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

If I could just redirect you, I want to talk about pilots. When you talk about mechanics, at least you're on the ground, and you have somebody who's doing things according to procedure. With pilots, you're talking about very sophisticated pieces of humankind who fly these planes. If they're not up to snuff, the situation can escalate much more quickly. Is that not the case? That's where we're seeing many more issues, and certainly throughout North America we're seeing, these days, issues with pilots.

[Daniel Slunder]

I'm concerned, in that respect, that once you start taking boardroom decisions and financial considerations into the cockpit, you're going to get improper decisions that are not based on safety anymore. If you're starting to pressure the individual about the fact that if you're stuck in this place it's going to be $20,000 worth of additional fees for the overnight passengers, then it becomes a little difficult, especially when the individual knows that the bottom line of the company is pretty tight.

You asked earlier why SMS would appeal to the industry. In 2001, the former director of commercial and business aviation told industry that if it adopted SMS, Transport Canada would be out of its face. They wouldn't be in their offices as often. That was said then in the industry, and it was fairly extensive.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

You know, in my conversations with mechanics and engineers when I travel around the north, people there say that they like Transport Canada inspectors. They come in and they're friends. They're people who ensure that they're doing their jobs right on the ground and in the hangar. Isn't that the case? Isn't there a relationship between the workers who are there to take care of the planes, the pilots who are flying the planes, and the people you represent?

[Daniel Slunder]

There's a lot to be said for someone on the ground when he's talking to his boss and saying that Transport could come any time here and we'll be caught. But if we're not there anymore to look, then there's no more safety belt for that individual. There is no fallback for that person.

[Carlos DaCosta]

That's what's taking place. The inspectors are no longer there, and when you have a situation take place and you come forward to identify it, you're told to file a report with the SMS process. And there it disappears, because it is investigated by a manager of quality control--a manager.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

We're in our last set of questions, so I'm just going to advise everybody that at the end, I'm going to ask that we clear the room. We have an in camera meeting, and we're on a bit of a time clock here.

We'll go to Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you to our witnesses for appearing.

I would note, Mr. Chair, that if I have any time left over, I will be sharing that time with Mr. Jean.

I have to say, I don't know if any of you are avid movie watchers, but it feels a little bit like Groundhog Day, starring Bill Murray. Every day he gets up and he goes through the same series of events. Today seems a little reminiscent. I've been at this committee for several years. We had a debate on Bill C-6 to make improvements to the Aeronautics Act, to implement safety management systems and to implement whistle-blower-type protections, among other things. I remember spending literally hours at the amendment stage in this committee, with the support of the Liberal Party and with our members in the Bloc, trying to come up with language that would make this a good system that could work together. And then it got to the House and a hoist motion from the New Democrats, of course, sidetracked what had been a process years in the making. In fact, I believe Bill C-6 started with about five years' worth of consultations in previous incarnations as a bill. So it's not as though this debate has suddenly materialized today.

First of all, let me state for the record, we would have had some protections and other things in place if Bill C-6 had succeeded in getting passed. So I think we have a serious problem here as a result of that hoist motion that was introduced.

Second, let me go a little further. You'll have to forgive me if I'm a little skeptical here, but I recall the testimony that every single union that was here before this committee said they were opposed in principle to SMS, safety management systems. Every single one of them said the same thing, on the record, time and again.

Now it's interesting that today, when the cameras are here...you'll forgive me if I feel some of you got a little bit of SMS religion today. You all accept SMS, I'm hearing, and if I'm looking at the requirements you're proposing, you're essentially prepared to accept SMS if it looks like exactly the same things you were asking for under Bill C-6. So I'm feeling a little skeptical about this.

Mr. DaCosta, I have a question for you. You said you recently began collecting data to test your hypothesis about how SMS systems are working. I think you went on to say you've been doing this for two to three weeks. You've obviously not completed that process, but you have no qualms about creating potential panic with the flying public. You've already come to a conclusion--it sounds like--at this committee on two weeks' worth of data collecting. Is that responsible?

[Carlos DaCosta]

I think I clarified the answer when I was asked a question by Mr. Laframboise. There isn't anything within these incidents that would cause something to fall out of the sky. But it is a problem within the system.

If I had a choice between SMS and the old system, I would take the old system any day. I worked as a mechanic. I liked the fact that the inspectors were there and that they made sure the companies were accountable and followed the rules. SMS does not put that into place. It allows the companies to hide behind the process, and Transport Canada will never know about it because they're doing spot checks once in a while. The chances are, if you spin the wheel, you might get caught or you might not.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Well, Mr. DaCosta, I think it's disingenuous to suggest you're out there testing a hypothesis, but you're sitting in front of the committee and in front of cameras and the media here and you're making some very authoritative and definitive statements about the system of airline safety in this country that would cause people to think twice about getting on a flight. I think that's irresponsible, first of all.

I think what we've heard here is that we have a safe system in Canada. If I recall the discussion around Bill C-6 as well, the main concern of three of the parties, at least--the lingering concern--was around the number of inspectors and whether we would live up to historic levels. It's clear today, from Mr. Grégoire, that we're still trying to get back to historic levels, but there's a commitment there to ensure we get back to the number of 878 inspectors.

So you'll have to forgive me, but you make it sound as though the system is falling apart, that it's not safe to fly here, and you're doing it on two weeks' worth of data collected.

[Carlos DaCosta]

If you play back the tapes, you will never hear me saying it was never safe to fly. I'll repeat my answer again. The incidents weren't big enough to cause an incident in the middle of the sky. But they are symptomatic problems of a process that's failing. And you could have a situation--if you understand human factors--when one mistake is made and another person takes over the job and he makes another mistake. It carries on and on and on until a major incident happens. And it could be the failure of the unit being installed, or it could go, yes, as far as having something not work in the sky. If a generator fails in the sky, you have two or three others as a backup. Again, back to my premise, it's not enough to cause an incident in the sky, but it's rather a problem of the SMS process.

The regulations are still in place. SMS just makes sure that more responsibility is put on the company and more onus is on them to make it work themselves. Therein lies the inherent problem with SMS. I cannot trust airlines. because they are in a conflict of interest. Time and time again, the evidence has shown that they will take other matters before safety. Southwest Airlines has proved it, American Airlines has proved it, and so have Delta and Continental.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

You're going to stop flying commercial airlines, is what you're telling us.

[Carlos DaCosta]

No, I fly all these airlines. But I trust that the system they have will catch it.

What I'm trying to do here is alert the committee. I tell you what, I don't want to be on this committee, because you have a tough decision to make.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. DaCosta, you're arguing on the one hand that you don't trust airline companies, and then on the other hand you're saying you're going to continue to fly those same air carriers. It doesn't add up to me, Mr. DaCosta. If things are so bad, then you should be informing us of your plans to stop flying commercial airliners.

What I'm trying to hit home to the public--because they're watching this debate, Mr. DaCosta--is that they need to know that when they get on their airplane, things are still safe there. You're trying to draw general rules from select evidence that you carried out in two weeks, rather than having an overall look at what the system actually looks like and working down from the system. I think that's a dangerous way to look at the system, Mr. DaCosta.

I don't know if I have any more time, but--

[Carlos DaCosta]

I understand the system as a former mechanic. Obviously you don't see it the way I do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

With that I will....

Mr. Volpe, on a point of order.

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

I always like us to finish off a meeting on a positive note. I think that what all of us want to do is have enough respect for our witnesses who have come here to share their experiences with us. I hope that all other members of the committee took that as the principle that guided all those before us as witnesses. Certainly that's how I interpreted Mr. DaCosta's view. I didn't see anything alarmist there, and I think it's irresponsible for anybody to suggest otherwise.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That's not a point of order. Your point has been made.

Thank you to our guests. We appreciate your time and input. Thank you very much.

I will ask everyone to clear the room as quickly as you can get out of here.

I'll ask the committee to stay behind for a brief in camera meeting.

[Proceedings continue in camera]