Transport Committee on April 6th, 2017

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you.

I wanted to point out that at this point there have certainly been no signals that we've received, and we've asked very specifically if there are plans to privatize our airports.

I wanted to talk a little about the regulations. You're concerned about one-size-fits-all. Is it a matter that you're concerned that regulations applying to long-haul flights would be applied to flights within Canada?

[John McKenna]

Yes, clearly, that is one of the points we are making. They're not subjected to the same kind of working environment therefore you can't apply the same exact regulations. You have to be able to adapt regulations to the environment. That's the objective and that's the purpose of the ICOA standards.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Okay, in that respect, then, I think a case and an argument could be made. Because of the relatively higher complexity of your operations here in Canada with more takeoffs and landings, with, in some cases, extended work days, especially if you're looking at services in the north, if anything, the regulations could be more stringent on the domestic carriers than they would be on a system where you have one takeoff and one landing, and a long space in between.

[John McKenna]

If that were the case, you would probably cease having air service in the north. It already is not a profitable industry there because of the land masses and the population up there. To add costs to operating those services would probably mean the end of those services.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I do understand there are obviously both costs and benefits.

Mr. Toering.

[Rudy Toering]

Certainly from our perspective, when we look at this one-size-fits-all, with our flights we see that we could have some long flights, but we have a tremendous number of rest periods between our flights. Our pilots, for example, within business aviation, would operate anywhere between 350 to 400 hours in a year, compared to an airliner pilot who will do probably well over 1,200 to 1,400 hours in a year—

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Are you saying, then, that if the long-haul regulations were applied to you, it wouldn't make a difference?

[Rudy Toering]

We're just saying that we have the ability to turn around and have the rest periods available to us, and the cumulative effects of long-haul flights are not relevant within our group.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I have one last question to Mr. Toering and Mr. McKenna.

Mr. McKenna, you brought up the issue of foreign ownership and I wanted to give you an opportunity to expand on that a bit in the context of what we're talking about here.

[John McKenna]

Foreign ownership is not necessarily a safety-related issue, in our opinion. Some people feel it could help bring capital to Canada. I think there's a misconception that this would help create low-cost carriers in Canada. There will never be low-cost carriers in Canada with the fees and charges that we have here in this country. There will be perhaps low-fee carriers, but never low-cost carriers.

Foreign ownership would request and they would require a return on their investment regardless of where the money comes from, so I have a feeling this would not contribute to heightened safety in Canada, in any way whatsoever.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to suspend our meeting. I thank our witnesses very much for the information you shared with us today.

I will suspend momentarily so that our witnesses can leave and our next witnesses can join us at the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We're reconvening our meeting.

We thank all three of you very much for coming. We have Captain Matthew Hogan, chair of the flight safety division of the Air Canada Pilots Association; Jerry Dias, president of Unifor; and from the Air Canada component of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Jordan Bray-Stone, health and safety chairperson.

Welcome.

Mr. Hogan, would you like to start off?

[Captain Matthew Hogan, Captain, Flight Safety Division and Chair, Air Canada Pilots Association]

Certainly. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee. On behalf of the Air Canada Pilots Association and our 3,400 pilots who fly passengers and cargo on Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge aircraft, I thank you for the opportunity to share with the committee our expertise in aviation safety.

I'm an Air Canada captain who has flown in Canada and around the world. The primary mission of every pilot every single day is the safety of our passengers, crew members, aircraft, and the public. I can tell you that this is true whether you're flying cargo or crossing the Atlantic at night with 250 people asleep behind you. There are many important aviation safety issues that need to be addressed in Canada: runway safety, pilot training, and lighting and navigation systems. I'm going to focus, however, on one issue today. It's something that affects every pilot I know, and that's fatigue.

Canada's aviation regulations do not align with accepted fatigue science. We lag far behind jurisdictions such as the United States when it comes to this vital component of aviation safety. In Canada our outdated regulations currently allow pilots to work for up 14 hours. Under certain circumstances, such as those involving mechanical issues, de-icing, weather challenges, or passenger delays, the current rules allow Canadian pilots to work for up to 17 hours.

That makes no sense. Aviation is terribly unforgiving. Fatigue is a type of impairment. It causes reduced alertness and degraded physical and mental performance, and you cannot self-diagnose that impairment. That's why Canada needs strong fatigue rules.

We've all experienced driving on a long road trip during which your eyes start to close and you pull over, stretch your legs, or roll down the window, but those aren't effective fatigue mitigation strategies, and they are certainly not an option when you're flying over the Atlantic at 3 a.m. The only solution for fatigue is sleep.

I'm not just speaking from experience. The science is clear. After eight and a half hours of flight time at night, fatigue degrades performance. This is based on NASA research that measured brainwave activity and microsleeps in actual flight operations at night. However, these NASA findings were not reflected in the draft regulations released by Transport Canada on March 25.

The good news is that those draft regulations finally introduced time-of-day sensitivity. The bad news is that the draft rules don't go nearly far enough to address the issue of fatigue on long-haul flights at night. The draft regulations propose 10 and a half hours of flight time for departures after 5 p.m. While an improvement, that is a full two hours longer than science recommends. For us as pilots who are responsible for the safe operation of our flights, based on our extensive first-hand experience that is just not good enough.

Our American friends learned the hard way. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration updated fatigue rules after a flight crashed in Buffalo, New York in 2009, killing 50 people. Fatigue was found to be a critical factor in that tragic accident. Today, U.S. fatigue rules limit pilots to eight hours of flight time at night, making the rules even more stringent than science recommends.

We shouldn't need an accident to improve fatigue rules. Fatigue affects all pilots. Fatigue rules should based on scientific evidence and should draw on the experience and expertise of the pilots who fly these flights at night. ACPA believes that all Canadian passengers and pilots deserve to be protected by the same level of safety.

I hope that the committee's report will recognize the need for strong, prescriptive, science-based regulations to protect against the dangers of fatigue. As a pilot, on behalf of my passengers and on behalf of my crew members I can tell you that safety is not just good business; it's the only business.

I thank you for your time and consideration and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bray-Stone.

[Jordan Bray-Stone, Health and Safety Committee Chairperson, Airline Division, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and committee

My name is Jordan Bray-Stone. I am the regulatory and safety committee chairperson for the Canadian Union of Public Employees Airline Division. CUPE represents approximately 9,000 flight attendants at eight airlines in Canada.

Our topic today is the change in the ratio of flight attendants to passengers on Canadian airlines, which occurred recently. On August 1, 2015, Transport Canada changed the regulation requiring one flight attendant for every 40 passengers to one flight attendant for every 50 passenger seats. This has meant, in many cases, a loss of at least one flight attendant on certain flights.

We have provided two documents to the committee, one that is an executive summary of our concerns, and another that is a fuller explanation of all issues, with supporting documentation, including references that provide extensive evidence supporting our claims, as requested by certain members of this committee.

As many of you aware, the previous government changed the regulation in 2015 after nearly two decades of intense industry pressure. This change was shrouded in secrecy, rushed through at the end of the previous government's mandate, and lacked public consultation. In fact, the regulation was never even published in part I of the Canada Gazette.

There are now fewer cabin crew to perform routine safety procedures and to respond to unpredictable in-flight events. At the same time, there's less regulatory oversight of the consequences.

As you can see in our larger submission, there are overwhelming fact-based investigations and review processes that have all come to the same conclusion, which is that a ratio of 1:50 is clearly not as safe as the previous ratio of 1:40, which itself had some concerning safety limitations.

Transport Canada's own reports, including ones that were suppressed for over a decade and only recently obtained by CUPE through a freedom of information request, could not be more clear. They state:

The arguments and issues raised by those who oppose this measure are persuasive that further reduction in the number of cabin crew can have a negative affect [sic] on safety and certainly will not enhance safety.

In fact, conclusions drawn by TC's then chief of cabin safety in 2001 included these:

I keep hearing that this is not a safety decision, but I disagree and the fact is that if the ratio was changed...there are definate safety implications and it would be a lowering of safety standards and that change becomes more and more evident as the aircraft size increases.

Speaking as your safety expert in this field, I not only do not support complete harmonization of the rule [with the U.S.], I am opposed to it.

We've heard in the past that this change is needed by Canadian airlines in order to compete against their southern competition. We do not believe this is true. Based on TC's own numbers, we estimate that there would be savings of approximately only 50 cents to a dollar per passenger per flight. For those supposed savings, significant new safety hazards have been introduced, and a severe drop in service provided to Canadians has resulted on many routes in particular.

Transport Canada has acknowledged that the ratio cannot provide an equivalent level of safety to 1:40 and has only agreed to say that 1:50 provides an “acceptable” standard. “Acceptable” is not an equivalent. “Acceptable” is not safe.

Furthermore, CUPE maintains that TC's 2003 risk assessment was flawed, was biased towards industry, and is now completely outdated and irrelevant given the numerous changes that have occurred in the industry since that time, particularly a move away from direct regulatory oversight.

This committee is the eyes and ears of the travelling public. We're asking you to urge the minister to reverse the decision of the previous government and restore the 1:40 ratio. At a minimum, we urge an independent review of the 1:50 ratio, including a new comprehensive risk assessment, with full stakeholder participation and meaningful remediation to any findings. We believe that an unbiased review will lead to the same conclusion that Transport Canada had in 2001, which is that the 1:50 ratio simply is not safe.

Also, we urge the minister and his officials to work with us to design more meaningful forms of ongoing consultation that recognize our unique knowledge of the industry and provide labour groups a more meaningful role in regulatory decision-making.

Finally, we ask for additional oversight by this committee of TC rule-making and regulatory duties.

I thank you very much for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Dias.

[Jerry Dias, President, Unifor]

Good afternoon. My name is Jerry Dias and I'm Unifor's national president.

With 310,000 members, Unifor is Canada's largest union of the private sector. We represent 12,000 members in the federally regulated aviation industry. I'm pleased to be here today on behalf of those members to discuss aviation safety.

Our submission provides advice in three broad areas: personnel issues, enforcement and monitoring of legislation, and infrastructure operations. Given the time limitations today, I'll focus my remarks on airport infrastructure operations and the monitoring and enforcement of legislation.

Our members working at airports are increasingly facing low wages and insecure work. This is a well-documented phenomenon that is increasingly receiving attention from the press.

What is perhaps less well documented or understood is the connection between precarious employment, workplace safety, and airport security. In 2003, researchers at the Institute for Industrial Relations at U.C. Berkeley found that improving the quality of employment for the lowest-paid and most insecure workers at the San Francisco International Airport significantly reduced turnover and improved job performance dramatically. Ultimately this led to fewer security breaches and an increased safety record. Instead of being under constant stress and strain to work more hours to make ends meet, workers at the airport had more training, higher pay, and as a result greater ability to focus on the job at hand and do it well.

Today, as employment quality in Canada's airports continues to erode, our air transportation system faces increased potential for safety breaches and workplace accidents. Much like the San Francisco airport case, the decrease in employment quality has led to high turnover. In some cases, it is so high that new employees are being trained by co-workers with less than one year of tenure on the job. Experience and expertise are being lost. Many workers who stay are holding multiple jobs and working extended shifts to make ends meet.

One of the main practices leading to this situation is the overreliance of airport authorities on the RFP process, or contract flipping. This practice has been employed as a tactic to intensify competition and keep costs down. But this heightened intensity is forcing contractors to compete based on how low they can pay their employees instead of how well they can perform the work. It has increased the vulnerability of the aviation industry to accidents and security breaches.

Unifor recommends four specific measures government can implement immediately. They include, one, limiting the number of companies permitted to conduct ground handling services; two, lifting employment quality at airports by introducing a $15 an hour minimum wage, paid sick days, full-time and permanent employment, and fair scheduling; and three, granting workers successorship rights in subcontracting and contract tendering at airports.

My second focus today is on air traffic controller inspectors. Air traffic controller inspectors oversee and license air traffic controllers. They also oversee all Canadian air traffic control regulation standards and procedures. Obviously the work has a direct impact on the safety of the aviation industry. Currently the number of ATC inspectors is dangerously low. Turnover is high, and staff retention is proving problematic. Increased workload and stress are just one indication that ATC inspectors are overburdened and under-resourced.

Unifor recommends additional resources for training and professional development, and hiring additional inspectors with appropriate qualifications. Canada needs a strong regulatory system supported by meaningful inspection and robust enforcement to ensure the safety and security of aviation workers—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Could you slow down just a little?

[Jerry Dias]

I have four minutes, so you know, it's—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I know. I'm sure you're going to get lots of questions. It's just the interpreters can't keep up with you. You still have another minute.

[Jerry Dias]

No problem.

Okay. Now I've got two sentences left. Why didn't you tell me before?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I wanted to see how fast you could go.

[Jerry Dias]

So it was a test, was it? Okay.

Then I have time to go through my recommendations again. They are additional resources for training and professional development, and hiring additional inspectors with appropriate qualifications. Canada needs a strong regulatory system supported by meaningful inspection and robust enforcement to ensure the safety and security of aviation workers, travellers, and the public. These recommendations will support the maintenance and improvement of aviation safety in the country.

Thank you and I look forward to taking your questions, but in case I went too fast, I'll go through my other recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I think you'll have opportunities, Mr. Dias, to get those in. The whole focus here is the committee has loads of questions, and we have the expertise here that we want to hear from.

In order to give everybody an opportunity to get those questions out, we'll start now with Mr. Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Congratulations, Mr. Dias, on your presentation.

I have many questions for each of you. This afternoon, several witnesses spoke about gaps in aviation safety. A former judge who presided over a commission of inquiry following the Dryden accident gave testimony. The commissions of inquiry are often created after an incident, when it is too late, unfortunately.

What is your opinion about holding a commission of inquiry into Canada's aviation safety?

Do we simply need to make adjustments, or do we need to go further than that?

I would like to hear comments from each of you.