Evidence of meeting #104 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was transport.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Actually I wanted to find out your opinion on the main problem, which is common to rail transport and aviation: operator or pilot fatigue.
3:45 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
Fatigue is a risk for any kind of transportation. That risk must be managed by the companies and must be subject to regulation.
Currently, Transport Canada establishes the regulations in that regard, but we will not comment on the regulations they propose.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much.
It's three minutes to the vote. I suggest we suspend now.
If everyone could come back as soon as the vote is over, we can resume the discussion.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I call the meeting back to order. I apologize for the interruption.
We'll go to Mr. Hardie for four minutes.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
We already canvassed the vessel length issue. One thing I noticed here was the issue of unstable approaches. In some of our earlier studies and in testimony that we heard, there appeared to be, and perhaps you can confirm this, some question as to the hand-off between the automated systems and the manual systems in approaches. Perhaps that hand-off wasn't as skilled as it needed to be, or it happened too early or too late.
Was that an observation that you developed after studying some of the unstable approach issues?
4 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
I would say in answer to this that the issue is unstable approaches—the approach is too high or too low, too fast or too slow—that are continued to a landing, because there is a higher risk of accident. They may arise for a variety of reasons. The hand-off between, for example, releasing the autopilot and flying manually may have had an effect in some, but it's not something that jumps out at me as a recurring causal factor.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
As somebody who flies fairly often, I had a chat with an airline pilot about this. I noticed that quite often as they begin their descent, they basically almost entirely cut the power to the motors, and they let the plane glide for a long period of time. Then you can hear the engine start up again on the final approach. Is that a practice that you're familiar with?
4:05 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
Each operator and each type of aircraft has its own standard operating procedures that they are required to follow. Again, it would be important that the crew maintain the flight profile with whatever combination of power or airspeed that they need in order to maintain that flight profile. It's not something that I can say is recurring.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Fatigue management is certainly a top-of-mind issue as we look at new regulations to deal with that, and the whole matter of the fatigue management system, and more generally, the safety management systems. Again, looking back at your analysis of past incidents, what can you say about the state of those processes? Are they being, for the most part, properly managed, or do you see some difficulties in relying on the companies to basically manage safety themselves?
4:05 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
Perhaps I'll start with safety management. Safety management is an issue that is on our watch-list and has been for a number of years now. We would like to see that all aviation companies, all commercial aviation operators, be required to have that. It's the same for marine operators, that they be required to demonstrate that they're effectively managing safety. In a number of our investigations, we've identified weaknesses in the way operators manage safety and also in the way Transport Canada oversees how they're doing that. That is definitely an issue that's high up on our radar.
With respect to fatigue management plans, the railway industry is required to have certain plans and to submit them to Transport Canada. Fatigue is a risk that has to be managed, so it should be managed as a hazard under a company's safety management system. But many companies aren't required to have them. Some companies comply with the regulations but don't go beyond that. We believe that safety needs to be managed, fatigue needs to be managed, and therefore, they should have those kinds of plans.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have to go down a bit deeper with respect to some of your comments in your opening remarks, specifically, the commitment to take action to accelerate the backlog. Would you be a bit more specific in regard to what you're actually referring to?
4:05 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
In 2016, when we released our updated watch-list, we identified that there were 52 recommendations directed to Transport Canada in all modes—air, rail, and marine—that were more than 10 years old. Thirty-nine of them were more than 20 years old. We wanted to see a concerted action on the part of Transport to reduce that number. As of the end of March, the 52 recommendations have been reduced to 33, so there has been progress made.
However, we still have a backlog, particularly on the aviation side, of outstanding recommendations, where we either haven't had a response or we've just had a response recently that we still need to reassess. Transport Canada, working with Madame Van Themsche, had developed a plan to triage the outstanding recommendations and provide them to us in certain bunches, at certain times, and they didn't meet their timelines. That's one of the reasons we still have a number of outstanding recommendations.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Concerning the on-board video and voice recorders, can you give some more comment on the direction you're taking?
4:05 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
When you talk about on-board voice and video, are you talking about locomotives?
4:05 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
Bill C-49 contained provisions with respect to the mandatory installation of locomotive voice and videos in all leading locomotive cabs on main track. That has recently passed. We're very pleased that finally, after many years of calling for voice and video recorders, they will be installed in lead locomotives on main track.
That being said, there's still a lot of work to be done. The regulations have to be developed that enshrine the balance between privacy and safety. We also have to examine our business processes in terms of sharing that data going forward.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Do you have any comment on what direction should be taken with respect to establishing those regulations?
4:05 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
The regulations will be established under Transport Canada's purview, but we will be collaborating with them to make sure that those regulations protect the information so that it's only used for the purposes permitted under the legislation and that privacy is protected. These are, however, Transport Canada's regulations.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
My last question is with respect to multimodal safety management oversight, and when I say multimodal, I mean different users.
Can you give some comment on the transportation companies overall with respect to managing their safety risks effectively or not effectively? Can you give some comment on where we are in that regard?
4:10 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
Each mode is a bit different in terms of the requirements.
If we look at the major companies—the major railway companies and the major air companies—by and large, they have the proper infrastructure and support. They have fairly mature safety management systems, which their regulator oversees to ensure that they're compliant with the regulations and also effective at doing what they're doing.
The issue for us is often with the smaller operators on the railway side, on the marine side, and in the air. In the air and marine modes, they're not required to have safety management systems. Many of them may thus take the approach of just minimal compliance with regulations, which isn't in and of itself enough to effectively manage the risks in their operations.