Evidence of meeting #39 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was system.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
That's right, the bill was abandoned as a result of a hoist motion before the last election, and the government never saw fit to reintroduce it.
4:55 p.m.
National President, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees
I just want to add that Transport Canada doesn't even have it right with its internal SMS, and one example is training. In his presentation, Mr. Grégoire talked about getting ready to train inspectors on SMS. Surely if it's been implemented for this long....
There are some serious flaws. Do the math. Where do resources come from with respect to the total number of inspector positions, the vacancies, the focus on safety management systems, and the whole process of box ticking and checking? These resources come from the inspectorate community. They can't be doing the SMS and the inspections and oversight at the same time.
In terms of the vacancies, at a time when there is increased air travel, they haven't made it back to the level they should be from 10 years ago.
There are serious problems. Despite what Mr. Grégoire said, it is not physically possible to put your concentration on SMS and the audits of SMS, while at the same time doing inspections and oversight.
I also want to address CAIRS, which Mr. Grégoire talked about. I'll give you an example. An inspector put in a question concerning CAIRS, only to not have it answered. A week later he put the question in again, saying he needed an answer. This is the system to be used now to raise concerns and questions. It is the system. A week later he got a work order to respond to the question that was put in CAIRS by him.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for joining us today.
I'd like to say something. Let's set aside all partisan politics for the moment. It was probably an interesting proposition to go with the Safety Management System recommended by the ICAO. I can understand why the Liberals, the minister and the Conservatives who were in office at the time endorsed this idea, because it was presented to them by the ICAO as an additional measure. As long as voluntary disclosure was still possible and that inspection services were maintained, as the ICAO recommended, then everything was fine. The problem is not a political one. Rather, it rests with Transport Canada. That's where I really have a problem.
Mr. DaCosta, what you're telling us is very important. Some of your employees blew the whistle and now face disciplinary action. I'd like to know the name of the air carrier involved. Why do I want to know? Because we're going to do it a favour. To date, no incidents have occurred, but the carrier will now have to be careful because the objective was to allow voluntary disclosure. That's why I'm going to ask you for the name of the airline involved in these incidents.
November 30th, 2009 / 5 p.m.
Airline Coordinator, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Canada
I think you missed the point in my bringing up these examples. I continue to fly. Is there a danger of an airliner falling out of the skies, such as the one I'm talking about? No, there isn't. These incidents weren't big enough to cause anything to happen in mid-air.
What they show is a symptom of a problem, and it is starting to grow. It's a symptom that's starting to spread like a virus. Other employees are watching what's going on and saying, “Wait a minute, that guy got a discipline letter, so why would I follow that process? Why would I not take matters into my own hands?”
Mechanics are professionals. If they can get the same result where it is extremely safe and properly repaired, they will do that and spare that person from being disciplined. That is what I'm trying to say. SMS was never meant to do that. It was always meant to have everybody be a happy family. Unfortunately, the company is instilling a culture where it's working in the opposite way.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I won't put the question to you again. I will respect your position.
Ms. Colins, you stated that inspectors should go back to conducting occasional random equipment checks and inspections, without notifying the airlines. One of our concerns was that Transport Canada would stop performing random or surprise inspections.
If I understand correctly, that has already happened. Correct?
5 p.m.
National President, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees
It is not happening. It has already happened. Yes, that is what I'm saying.
5 p.m.
Bloc
5 p.m.
Kerry Williams National Vice-President, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees
We hear the constant refrain from the department that SMS is an additional layer. It is not. When you listen to what they say, you understand that this is an absolute replacement of the inspectorate system. They say it brings Canada to a place of pride in its safety record. But you have to ask why Canada would replace a system that is considered one of the best in the world with something that is not yet tested.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Slunder, you provided proof in your documents that there are fewer inspectors. There are very few federal inspectors at the present time.
How has your work changed? What was your work like prior to, and after, the implementation of SMS?
I'd like my colleagues to get an idea of how your work has changed.
5:05 p.m.
National Chair, Canadian Federal Pilots Association
In the past, our inspectors travelled on site and did pilot assessments. They assessed the training given to pilots and verified that the number of hours on duty did not exceed the accepted standard. They verified the carriers' certification. When a problem was noted during a site visit, it was discussed with the pilots. Certain things were noted and the act was enforced.
This is not how things are done anymore. Instead, inspectors work in an office and check to see if documents are in order.
An inspector in Quebec once told me, for example, that he had been asked to check out an air show. Following up on a complaint from a citizen, he went out to the air show and found a situation that was far from normal. Unauthorized helicopters were taking people up on sightseeing tours.
That's what happens when checks are not done. Because people know that no surprise inspections will be conducted, they do whatever they want.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
You stated to La Presse that also at issue were the new directives issued by Transport Canada and the large air carriers. Can you tell us more about that?
5:05 p.m.
National Chair, Canadian Federal Pilots Association
I'm not sure I understood your question.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
According to a story published in this morning's edition of La Presse, Transport Canada acknowledged that there was a problem affecting small and large carriers.
5:05 p.m.
National Chair, Canadian Federal Pilots Association
As Mr. Grégoire told you, they listened to our concerns. We met with Mr. Eley for two hours and provided him with 14 pages of information on SMS and roll-out problems. We had observed the problems that were occurring. However, the big airlines are encountering the same problems as the small carriers.
We are not going to audit the large carriers because they supposedly comply with SMS standards, but that isn't to say that the problems mentioned affect only the small carriers. Everyone is affected.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
So then, he misunderstood what you were trying to... All air carriers are affected.
5:05 p.m.
A voice
Yes.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Thanks, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to all the witnesses here. I appreciate your testimony.
There is a difference between what happened in the past and what is happening today. Transport Canada has made a decision to go in a certain direction. Airline companies have supported it. Can you tell me how you feel? What caused these decisions to be made? Was it that Transport Canada wanted to cut costs? Was it that airline companies wanted to cut costs or get other kinds of benefits from taking on the SMS role and reducing inspections?
5:05 p.m.
National President, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees
I would say the biggest answer would be liability. It's an issue of liability. There are costs as well, but the single most important reason for going this way is liability.
5:05 p.m.
National President, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees
That's right.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
5:05 p.m.
Airline Coordinator, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Canada
In the incidents I brought forward, clearly the operations mode took over. You can only assume by what took place that the manager was more interested in getting the airplane out on time and in trying to reduce the headaches associated with it: the cost of putting up passengers in hotels, giving them meals and whatever, and having to face additional paperwork. It was easier for him to squeeze the mechanic than it was to try to explain to superiors that it just wasn't going to make it on time. That's the only thing that makes sense.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
We've seen that most major carriers are losing money every year. The industry is in trouble all over the place. It's not working out at all. What we have is a situation in which certainly everybody is under the gun these days to cut costs. On the other hand, we have Transport Canada cutting costs on inspectors, random inspections, and keeping up the number of inspectors for the quantity of flights. Is this situation escalating out of control?
