Transport Committee on April 29th, 2010

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

We talked a little bit about the increase in airport security taxes going up. You make a comment that it's increasing by 52%. Where do you think these taxes should be invested to best benefit aviation security?

[John McKenna]

I think a global approach needs to be made as far as all security measures are concerned, how they're financed, how they're applied, who does what, and not just knee-jerk reactions when things happen.

The air travellers security charge is collected by government, goes to the general fund, and then it funds CATSA. We don't know how much is collected and we don't really know how CATSA spends its money or if it spends it wisely. We have no idea.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

We understand that this new tax will collect in the range of $3.2 billion.

You made some comments on body scanners and behavioural screening. I wonder if you might elaborate on the usefulness of body scanners and on your opinion on behavioural screening versus the trusted traveller approach that they take in Israel.

[Michael Skrobica, Vice-President, Industry Monetary Affairs, Air Transport Association of Canada]

My name is Mike Skrobica, and I am with the Air Transport Association of Canada. I'm responsible for the security file at ATAC and consequently I am hoping to answer on behalf of John.

With regard to the full-body scanners, we believe they are more appropriate for the Canadian situation than behavioural analysis. The behavioural analysis that has been suggested and trialled at CATSA is really Israel-lite, and even under the best of circumstances the sheer volume and number of flights far eclipses what you see in the very limited aviation market that is Israel. As a result, we believe a technological fix is appropriate. However, people electing not to go through the body scanner, or limiting it to people over 18 years of age, are definite loopholes and they need to be closed.

[The Vice-Chair (Hon. Joseph Volpe), Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. Skrobica.

I've got to go to Mr. Laframboise.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for appearing before the committee.

My first question is for Mr. Prud'Homme. In the beginning of your presentation, you said something enlightening when you stated that it seemed clear during the first meeting between your association and Transport Canada that this would replace the traditional inspection system. That was in fact Transport Canada's objective, although we always challenged this. However, there was a change of heart and the intent is now to protect the traditional inspection system, to which would be added the security management system. I have always been against replacing the traditional system. The International Civil Aviation Organization has stated that we need a balance between security management systems and inspection systems. I think that Transport Canada has understood that now.

I believe the government has decided to postpone the implementation of the system. If I understood correctly, before the security management system is put in place by your members, we would have to take the size of the businesses concerned into account. Is that correct?

[Marco Prud'Homme]

In fact, we saw that during the first phase of the implementation of the SMS in carriers of the 705 type and in airports, inspectors were overwhelmed by an increased workload from one day to the next. However, we are not talking about a large number of businesses.

In Quebec, two-thirds of these businesses have at least 10 employees. We heard that Transport Canada was going to submit a new structure in the fall. We will be seeing a new work and organization structure, and then approximately two-thirds of Quebec businesses will be undertaking to put an SMS in place. Given such a workload, it is normal that people set priorities. If you want to pursue this implementation while continuing to carry out inspections, we will need a much more gradual approach, staggered over a period of time.

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

Transport Canada will have to adjust. We want to increase the number of inspectors but it is proving difficult to fill the positions. Federal pilots have told us that the will is there, but that in practice, it is proving to be more difficult than expected. Of course, this is a fact which may catch up with us rather quickly given your clientele.

[Marco Prud'Homme]

We must take that fact into account and also the fact that many inspectors are going to be retiring soon and will have to be replaced. Because of the current demographic picture in Canada, a lot of people are retiring and we have to replace them. We will be experiencing a potential crisis as early as over the next three years. In addition, we are adding to the workload. Those are the magic ingredients to make up a complicated situation.

We suggest a much more gradual approach. There is no need to involve all of the 703-type companies and all of the piloting schools. If we are dealing with small organizations where the owners are already on the cutting edge, adding this system can turn out to be a value-added undertaking. We have to ask ourselves however if this is really the right time to do this and if we have the capacity to do it.

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

My next question will be addressed both to Mr. Jones and to Mr. Prud'Homme.

My feeling is that if this were to be implemented, the associations you represent would probably like to be the managers of this, somewhat like the Canadian Business Aviation Association used to be. I wonder why you want to do that. I was looking at the accident reports of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, which was blaming the Canadian Business Aviation Association.

First of all, you have a number of members and they are tied to the ups and downs of the economy, that is to say that some businesses are doing well and others less well. Why would an association want to manage this? Why not simply let Transport Canada do its work? Why are you trying to become an accreditation entity when one instance of fault-finding by the Transportation Safety Board could ruin your association in five minutes?

[Marco Prud'Homme]

The associations have different interests. The document you are alluding to was tabled in January 23, 2009, precisely to set up partnership programs within the industry. In our case at the AQTA, we looked at this and we rejected the idea of doing precisely what you were describing.

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

Very well, perfect.

Mr. Jones?

[Fred Jones]

I should say, first of all, that I have no mandate from our board or our members to advocate for a CBAA type of program. My concern is that repatriating the CBAA program sent a terrible message to the aviation community in an SMS context. It signaled a retreat from SMS principles.

First of all, the fact that the Fox Harbour accident report blamed the CBAA, or at least identified shortcomings in the CBAA program, meant that there were issues the CBAA had to fix. It didn't mean that the entire concept was bad. That's one point.

What our association is advocating for the helicopter industry is that the minister not extend the message that we believe he sent by repatriating the CBAA program to include other opportunities that may exist for delegation--individual delegation. The CBAA program was a sweeping program that included certification and oversight of business aviation operators. Delegations of authority are much smaller areas where the minister says to industry that it will exercise this authority on behalf of the minister. There are many, many examples of that having been successful in our industry.

That does a few things for industry. It has the potential to provide more flexibility to operators. It could free us up, to some extent, from prescriptive regulations. And it could give us more influence over the regulatory environment we have to live in on a day-to-day basis. It's our position that without compromising safety, it provides operators with more flexibility and frees them up from the very restrictive, very prescriptive rules that are in place today.

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

However, Mr. Jones, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada report on the accident was devastating for the association. The association expressed its disagreement with the conclusions of the Transportation Safety Board but the fact remains that that office is the organization that the population has to trust. I think that the government's decision was the right one.

My next question is addressed to Mr. McKenna—

[The Vice-Chair (Hon. Joseph Volpe), Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Laframboise I am sorry but your seven minutes are up. Perhaps you will have another opportunity to speak.

Mr. Bevington, you have the floor.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses here today. I appreciate all your points of view. I think, quite clearly, what you're saying about the small carriers is that there's a need for a more detailed look at how to implement SMS for them. Quite clearly, the testimony of Mr. Nourse and Mr. Prud'Homme suggests that we are not there yet.

I note, Mr. McKenna, in some of your comments in Wings magazine that you say that you're in the process of drafting an SMS guide through ATAC. The delay in implementation for the small carriers... I think we'd probably all agree that this is something that is required. That gets the nod, I think, from everyone.

I'm really glad to see you present that, because the unanimity about that is really important to us as a committee. It backs up the direction, as well. I guess the question is how long this is going to take. And will we have the flexibility within SMS programs to identify the northern issues and to identify the issues of very small carriers, which are completely different? You can't set up a culture of safety with very small carriers unless you have unanimity among the small carriers that this is the culture. Is that not correct?

The same applies in the north. You're going to have regulations that outline SMS to a greater extent than they do for the larger carriers. I'd like to have Mr. Nourse and Mr. Prud'Homme comment on that.

[The Vice-Chair (Hon. Joseph Volpe), Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Nourse.

[Stephen Nourse]

Certainly it's more of a challenge in the smaller operators, simply because you don't have the quantities of data to work with that you have in the large ones. Certainly, though, the experience in the large carriers has been very positive, as I've mentioned. We just feel that taking this breather, shall we say, is quite appropriate to take a look at the lessons learned with the large carriers and make sure that when it is rolled out to the smaller ones it is appropriate to their size and complexity.

However, the small carriers are just as interested in safety. It's interesting to see them interact with larger carriers at places, like at our recent annual general meeting. They see it coming. They're apprehensive. But they're also getting, shall we say, good feelings from the fact that the 705 carriers are no longer viewing it as a significant negative.

Transport Canada is--

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Very good.

[Marco Prud'Homme]

Pour ma part... I'll try my English. I was working for a 705 operator when they first started SMS. We were actually one of the first companies to put SMS into phase one, phase two, and phase three. Basically, it required a lot of time. And we didn't have any tools. We had to hire a consultant in order to learn what SMS was about.

These resources were possible because this enterprise had a hundred employees. But when you're working in a company that has five, seven, or eight employees, you don't really have the resources to hire a consultant. So you're looking to your association to provide perhaps a service or training.

Basically, the tools don't exist. We have to hire people to build them, and this costs money. So it all comes down to having time and having resources to do this thing. We're not against it. We're just saying there's a capability issue that we have to address.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

So in a sense, safety management systems for small carriers may imply that you'd have a best practices guide that would lay out, perhaps even in regulation to some degree, what small carriers would be required to live up to in terms of safety. It wouldn't be as much self-directed as directed within the small aviation industry.

[Marco Prud'Homme]

One thing that's very interesting about SMS is that when you apply it to a big company, it's about silo busting, having information flowing throughout all the departments. But when you're a small company, there are no silos. You are the silo.

Let's say that you have an issue with safety on the ramp and you find a tool or a procedure to increase safety. That action you take will not be shared with all the other companies. So basically everybody is set on their own table in trying to improve safety. And all that information is not shared.

So maybe for a small enterprise we could look at something different, a different approach to SMS, from just saying we'll have this phase one, two, three, and four and at the end of the day we'll have a system. But when you have eight employees...

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Yes, okay. Very good.

I want to move on to some of the security issues. I've got a couple of minutes.

You talked about the full-body scanners, and you admit they wouldn't have gotten the bomber.

We've heard evidence in the last while that with the hardened cockpit doors, the no-access, we've taken away some of the requirements in terms of knives and guns, in terms of weaponizing a plane or causing a plane to be taken over. So the threat assessment really lies now with exploding a plane. If you've got a full-body scanner that can't identify explosives, what good is that? Why wouldn't we want to look at a system where we sniff more than strip, where rather than stripping, we sniff? That system would more likely identify explosives than would the full-body scanner. So where is the risk here that we're after?

[Michael Skrobica]

I'll answer on behalf of Mr. McKenna.

First of all, we think the full-body scanners fulfill an important role. Is it a 100% solution? No.

As you've noted, there is electronic explosive vapour detection and there is also electronic explosive trace detection. The trace detection right now is being utilized in Canada. It's the swabs that are taken on your luggage. So if you even have a bomb, the chemicals are usually so volatile that you would probably pass those chemicals on to other articles you carry or wear. So we're utilizing that, and we're not saying we should get rid of it.

The United States, after many years of denying the usefulness of vapour detection, is now trialling it at a number of their larger airports.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Isn't that what the Israelis use?