Transport Committee on April 1st, 2010

[Richard Balnis]

I would take Monsieur Grégoire at his word that he's hiring for those positions. I suspect the arrival of the new deputy minister, whom we have not yet met.... We have asked to meet with her, but we have not yet formally been able to meet with her. I suspect that is a factor in ensuring those positions would be filled. I think Director General Martin Eley is also a factor. He has replaced the previous director general. I think they have recognized that these positions be filled...

So I believe them when they say they are hiring. I think he said that by the end of August we should have all 96 positions filled. I don't know if they're having problems recruiting people. I don't know. I don't represent those people. You should speak to the unions who represent those people, the CFPA or the UCTE. Maybe they can tell you whether there are problems.

I believe there is an effort to hire. My issue is if they will still have sufficient resources to do in their policies no notice inspections. That is the question I'm putting to you. They said they will do that. I'm putting their policy papers in front of you to say that they say they will do that. The reality is, will they do that on the ground?

I would ask you to participate. We will assist you as best we can. Obviously we didn't assist you quickly enough, but we will assist you as best we can to ensure that happens, because I think that is an essential component that has been missing in this experiment.

The ship has changed. I heard the DM on Tuesday very clearly send a new message. She is a former deputy minister from the department that dealt with the listeriosis deaths, so I think she knows that when you have inspectors who are unhappy and when you are not conducting effective surveillance, you need, in her view, to turn things around. I was encouraged.

In fact, I am struck by her leadership qualities. For her to turn around and create an advisory group of inspectors, so she doesn't listen to Monsieur Grégoire or Monsieur Eley or Monsieur Sherritt, who will say things to her... She is going to go to the front line inspector and say, “Come on, guys, tell me that.” That is unprecedented. I believe she is a deputy minister with a mission to achieve things, and I would ask you to help her achieve those things, because I think it is essential.

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

Fine.

Mr. Balnis, I agree with you. To help her with business aircraft, we must take it away from the Canadian organization. How do we move forward? Do we have to put Transport Canada in charge of the accreditations? What do we have to do to re-establish order in the business aircraft sector?

[Richard Balnis]

On the specific issue of the CBAA, I believe there is a transition period of one year. I understand that Don Sherritt will be leading a consultation process to bring back the old CAR 604 regulations that used to regulate these operators. They hope to do that in a year's time, but I think that is an ambitious timeframe.

In terms of other organizations, if you remember, during Bill C-7, people were saying airports, helicopters... There is a document we put in here, at tab 3, which is their policy to do new initiatives, to do safety partnerships. I think you should review that policy and, if you feel warranted, ask the minister to look at it and rescind that policy as well, so the CBAA experiment will be ended and the way forward...

My understanding is that this policy was introduced by Mr. Reinhardt, who worked for Mr. Preuss. Both of those gentlemen have since retired. Perhaps it's time for the new leadership and the minister to review tab 3 and say, “We don't think we need to go there.” I think that would go a long way towards sending a very clear signal on how to deal with things in this industry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Merci, monsieur Laframboise.

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for coming here today.

I must say that I don't have a problem with receiving this information today and receiving it in the format that it is in. I am thankful for it. I am thankful that we have some of the very intrinsic parts of this Transport Canada plan that we can actually look at.

On Tuesday when I asked a question of the witnesses about surveillance, the answers I received didn't give me the understanding that you've given me with these documents here today. We'll take this into account.

I feel that the surveillance aspect of this can't be handled in the detail that's shown in this policy. We need to understand fully what that surveillance activity will be. It has to be clearly outlined to us. I think that'll be one of the aspects that I'll be going back to the department on.

Can you clearly lay out what you expect Transport Canada will provide in surveillance with this change in policy that you've indicated?

[Richard Balnis]

I think the first way there is the question that Mr. Dhaliwal asked on Tuesday. I said then, “There's a good question”. Unfortunately, Monsieur Grégoire did not understand it and he didn't answer it.

Here's what Mr. Dhaliwal's question was about. We had a situation with an Air Canada flight that was diverted and that did some de-icing procedures. That was reported to you by the CFPA. Mr. Dhaliwal asked what has happened with that and Monsieur Grégoire did not answer.

Is it because he didn't know or is it because they wouldn't tell you? I would suggest that if you ask that question to him again, if you ask him again to explain how they handled that situation, I believe you will begin to open up the issue of how inspections are done.

In tab 7, we presented the case study of Southwest Airlines--

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I'm familiar with that. I have a question on that as well and it's slightly different. I'd like to go after that.

In your “lessons for Canada”, you speak about “the impact of Transport Canada's new policy to not take enforcement action against carriers who 'promise' to correct voluntarily self-disclosed problems under their new Safety Management Systems...”.

Now that, I suppose, would apply to manufacturers as well, and within the whole organization. What we've seen with the Cougar crash off the coast of Newfoundland, which killed many people, was that there was a failure to deal with a disclosed problem that was clearly identified even by Transport Canada. People were dead on the ground because this voluntary disclosure, with the promise to correct, did not take place in a reasonable fashion. Is that not correct?

[Richard Balnis]

I think that is our precise concern on page 7, tab 7, which was borne out with Southwest and borne out in the case of Cougar. Airlines make mistakes. Airlines are under tremendous cost pressure. The regulator needs to be able to go in there to make sure that things are fine.

In the case of Southwest, it was an inspector doing a midnight inspection on an aircraft who looked up and saw a crack, even though Southwest's paperwork with his manager was perfectly in order.So the manager thought--the FAA thought--everything was fine. The paperwork was fine; it later turned out he was a little too friendly with Southwest. The inspector got death threats and had to whistle-blow. I think this is an incredible case--

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

But with Cougar, if there was enforcement action taken over the nature of the bolts that were holding on the oil cleaning system, the filter...if that enforcement action had been taken by Transport Canada, we may have avoided that crash. Is that not correct?

[Richard Balnis]

I'm not going to venture out because I don't know the details of the Cougar situation exactly and who was inspecting what. Because as I understand it, the manufacturers are not under SMS; they were just under routine surveillance. But from the way you're presenting the information, it sounds to me that if there had been an inspector who would have caught the fact that things weren't being done properly, that aircraft would not have flown that day with those passengers. But I can't say with certainty, yes, sir, those lives would have been saved.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

The next question is out of that. If we're going to go to enforcement action against carriers, if this particular new policy not to take enforcement action... What does it take in manpower and organization to do the work properly, to do enforcement properly, to ensure that the companies are complying? Is this another issue that surrounds the need for more resources with Transport Canada?

[Richard Balnis]

It is absolutely an issue that surrounds the need for extra resources. In terms of us saying that it's x or y number of extra bodies, with respect, I think you should bring forward the unions that represent those inspectors: the CFPA and the UCTE, and I believe there is an engineering PIPSC unit. Perhaps they could sit down with you and explain exactly how their workload is calculated and they can tell you if 96 is enough or not. I can't comment on that, but to have the resources to do it is essential.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You have one minute.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you very much.

What Transport Canada presented to us on Tuesday, is that what the inspectors are saying they are doing on the ground with them? Are they actually listening to the inspectors? Are they actually doing what they said they're pursuing right now?

[Richard Balnis]

They are listening to their inspectors. I have spoken with both inspectors' unions and it is true that these meetings are happening.

We met with Monsieur Grégoire in December and he promised that he would sit down with us because he feels we are spreading misinformation on SMS. He said that he wanted to convince us within a year's time that Transport Canada SMS is the best thing in the world and CUPE fully supports it. We have yet to meet with him. I think we told him that “SMS”, for our members, means “selling out my safety”.

He has not met with us since then to convince us, but he has been listening to the inspectors, and I am heartened by the deputy minister's words. She said that she has an advisory committee and she has made her managers go to the front line. I think that is a refreshing approach to making sure you're in touch with the front line. She's only been there eight months and she has a large department to deal with. We wish her the best of luck and we wish Mr. Eley the best of luck to ensure that they deliver on what they said.

But I'm just saying that in their policy document, in tab 5, there appear to be contradictions. What they say they do and what they have written appears to be in contradiction. As long as we get to the front line correctly...

I would urge you in the strongest possible terms to focus your attention on those areas in your subsequent deliberations, and when the department returns. As Mr. Volpe says, I'll be sitting in the audience. I'd like to sit with them because Don Sherritt says I don't understand tab 5. Tell me I'm wrong--I can read. I hope I will be back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank our witnesses for appearing here today.

I have a principles question for the record. You can answer for each of your particular organizations. Does your organization support safety management systems in principle as a means to improve aviation safety, or are you principally opposed to the idea of SMS?

[Richard Balnis]

I think the first line of our submission says that we have been critics of safety management systems in aviation since they were first discussed in 1999, and we continue to be.

The theory of SMS is fantastic. The reality of SMS in the airline industry for CARs 705 operators--we agree with Ron's observations--is that there are a lot of problems out there. The theory has not been translated into reality, which is where our members work.

So I'm not going to say in principle yes or no, because there is a great theory, but the reality is not living up to it. I guess where we have the greatest difficulty is with risk management. Where risk management allows...

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

With due respect, Mr. Balnis, I think you are venturing a little further than what I asked. Are you principally opposed to SMS or are you simply a critic of the implementation of SMS? That is what I am getting at, Mr. Balnis.

[Richard Balnis]

We are both. The principle is risk management, wherein employee injuries are now seen as acceptable. So in principle, we're opposed to that, and also to the implementation.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

So you're principally opposed to SMS.

Mr. Smith, are you principally opposed to SMS or are you just critical of the implementation?

[Ron Smith]

Sir, we're not principally opposed to SMS. We think there are some problems with the implementation, with the way it is running.

I will give you a good example, sir, of where it has worked well. I come out of the air navigation system. I come from Transport Canada, and then Nav Canada, back when it was commercialized.

Nav Canada has a safety management system that's fully functioning and takes into account everything I am going to state right now. There has to be oversight. There has to be training down to the working level. There has to be encouragement of the employees and members to file SMS reports. There has to be non-punitive reporting so that you can report something that happened without fear of being sent home without pay.

Those are the issues. As I said earlier, I don't want to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Fair enough.

[Ron Smith]

So I'm not opposed to it, sir.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

All right. My point being that I took some umbrage--or no, not umbrage, I guess... I noted particularly that you said that you don't disagree with this position, and yet the two of you actually do. Your unions disagree. Principally they are opposed to SMS. I appreciate Mr. Balnis's consistency for well over a decade on this particular issue.

You're not principally opposed to it. We're now getting down to the discussion of how we improve the implementation of it.