Transport Committee on April 6th, 2017

[John McKenna]

Of course nobody argues the fact that fatigue needs to be managed. The carriers do that now through SMS systems. The fact that there is the science for or against the position the government has taken on this is significant.

What we are saying, however, is that you cannot apply a fatigue regulation that's aimed at carriers that carry out transcontinental flights to carriers that fly within Canada, different types of carriers. You can't apply the same regulations for SMS between those people. Also, you can't compare the type of fatigue that pilot endures to another type of pilot, the helicopter industry, float plane operations, or cargo operators.

We are saying that the government simply needs to sit back and consult more with industry. We're not saying there should not be regulations. We're saying that this regulation has been developed and hatched in Tower C at Transport Canada with very little input from industry.

Thank you.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I'll be sharing my time with my colleague Vance.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

First off, I want to thank the witnesses for coming out today, in particular Dr. Moshansky.

I'm reading your background. It's very much appreciated, what you've done. Your ongoing contributions, and of course, all that you've done within the inquiry, are simply unprecedented. I'd simply like to give my appreciation to you, and all of you, for your contributions.

With that said, I also want to ask something based on what we've been working on for the past few weeks, few meetings. And despite claims by members opposite that, for example, human health implications of cosmic radiation are a concern, we have yet to receive any witnesses or any requests for witnesses who attach themselves to those claims.

With that, I'm going to open up the floor for you to respond to some of the questions that you may not have had a chance to respond to previously today. As well, and going to Mr. Aubin's question, I want to dig a bit deeper, to get into the weeds a bit with respect to where we should be moving toward. Yes, we've inherited a lot of the same commitments from the previous government, and we do want to make sure it's that much better, moving forward, with this government.

We've listened to concerns about screening of security personnel working at the airports. We've heard CATSA's service delivery model, the civil aviation surveillance program. Of course, lastly, there was the work conditions of aircraft personnel and inspectors, their training, security screening for employees working at secure areas of airports, and, of course, as Mr. McKenna alluded to, those who are working within the industry who simply have fatigue.

With that, I do want to open up the floor for you. That's what you're here for, to give your thoughts. Again, if I can, I would ask and request that you actually get a bit further into the weeds so that we can get some input from you folks with respect to some of the concerns you're recognizing on a daily basis.

[John McKenna]

If I may say, I respectfully disagree with Judge Virgil Moshansky as far as the lack of regulatory oversight is concerned. There is regulatory oversight in our industry—ask any carrier about that. There is, however, a misallocation of where resources should be within the department. We have been suggesting for many years that the department delegate certain responsibilities, especially the administrative stuff, and that it concentrate its resources on hands-on safety-related inspections and other types of activities. This has been an area of concern for us for many years. We feel there's an answer there to that.

Of course, cuts are something we've been dealing with for a long time at this department—and at many others, by the way. We've seen cuts in everything in aviation except for fees and charges. We feel that if the department were open to revisiting how it uses its resources, it would be a way better investment for us than anything else, including an inquiry.

[Rudy Toering]

I fully support what John has just indicated. From our perspective, all of our discussions, as we've gone through in perfecting all of the documentation and support documentation for our members to be able to operate under a very proactive SMS, it turns into a safety culture. It is a safety culture. There was mention of this whole oversight, and why do you need the extra oversight? Don't you have confidence in what you're doing? We have full confidence in what we're doing as far as it's concerned because we've seen the results of that in our organization, certainly in our sector, and so have John and others in their sector.

The matter of oversight is also a matter of collaboration. You want somebody who's in a position outside your company, who is objective. It's not a matter of having a lack of confidence in the SMS system; it's a matter of having that collaborative inspector who is trained, knows the intricacies of a risk management system, and is able to talk to it in a collaborative way with our departments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here.

My questions will be fairly simple and direct. Since I have more than one question, I would appreciate short answers.

Over the past 10 or 15 years, has the number of flights in Canada and around the world increased?

[John McKenna]

Our industry is growing steadily at a rate of about 5% annually.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Perfect.

Mr. Toering, do you agree with that figure?

[Rudy Toering]

Yes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

My question will be simple.

As the Honourable Mr. Justice said, I don't want to downplay the importance of each incident, but I would like to know if the percentage of incidents has increased over time. Does the fact that there are more flights have a direct impact of increasing the risk of incidents? It may not be our system that is completely upside down. As far as I know, Canada is one of the safest places in the world.

Is my reasoning completely off? Does anyone want to venture an answer? I would like the other two witnesses to answer first because we haven't heard much from them so far. The Honourable Mr. Justice could answer next.

[John McKenna]

Our industry has grown, but the rate of incidents and accidents has not kept pace. Of course, the rate may vary because a single incident can completely change the data, but generally speaking, our performance is improving and the number of incidents is dropping.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

You confirm that the percentage of incidents or accidents is decreasing, but it is a percentage and not an absolute number. I don't want to downplay the importance of working on this issue to continue improving things. As a percentage, would you say that the number of incidents or accidents has decreased?

[John McKenna]

Yes. In general, it is decreasing. There are always years that are—

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Yes, I understand. On a linear curve, we are seeing a trend. That's right.

Do you have anything to add, Mr. Toering?

[Rudy Toering]

Probably a good example of that one, the Kelowna accident has been, and it's unfortunate of course, the loss and death. That is 10 years straight with no accidents and no fatalities within our industry until the one that has just occurred.

There is going to be an impossibility at one point for us to get better than.... Will we actually get zero accidents at any particular time? That is certainly the objective of all that we want to achieve. We want to minimize, as much as we can, any type of fatalities. But one over 10 years is still the safest organization worldwide when we look at our sector.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Perfect.

I would like to make a comment about fees, which Mr. Moshansky addressed.

I fully agree that there should be no increase in costs; it is already quite expensive. If the government wants to find money, there is a way to find it in the system. Believe me, there is money in the coffers of the federal, provincial and municipal governments. What is important is how to establish and manage priorities. If it is a priority, the government will make the decision to invest in the right places before further increasing the costs of Canadian users.

I don't know if my question is directly related to that, but I'm asking it anyway.

The Liberal government has clearly indicated its intention to assess the possibility of privatizing airports, in its objective to finance its infrastructure bank. It's not related to you, but I just want to put it into context. In your opinion, could the privatization of airports have an impact on aviation safety? There is a lot of concern about that. People say there is a great danger in this. It is managed by Transport Canada. Airports are national and institutionalized. Do you think there might be consequences to privatizing them?

My question is for all three witnesses.

[John McKenna]

Our concern is not so much about security as it is about the financial aspect. Privatization like this could have a financial impact. In any event, I would hope that privatization would be duly governed by regulations stating that standards should be maintained. Our concern about privatization is instead linked to the fact that it would make our industry even less competitive compared to other modes of transportation and, above all, less competitive than our neighbours to the south.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

You mean more competitive.

[John McKenna]

No, we would be less competitive.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Okay.

Mr. Toering, what are your thoughts?

[Rudy Toering]

It's exactly the same.

I'm sorry, but I will continue in English.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

That's fine. Continue in English.

[Rudy Toering]

We continually have to fight for our space at major airports from a business aviation perspective. We do not use the terminals, and so on. We have private terminals that are located and support the airport infrastructure. Over the years it has...and historically we've seen it happen in Heathrow.

We've seen it happen in many different areas where the dollar was always the reason for the airports and for the incomes. The heavier the airplanes, the more landing taxes they can charge, and so other aviation, general aviation, business aviation was always at risk of losing the ability to use those airports. That is certainly a risk for us. If privatization goes that route, and it's not properly structured, then we have an issue.

An example of a properly structured group would be Nav Canada. Look at Nav Canada's 20 years of a tremendous record and what they've accomplished as a not-for-profit corporation. That's because the governance that was set up to protect it, and to protect all the users, was embedded in the acts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much. I'm glad you were able to get your full answer in there.

Our last questioner is Mr. Hardie.