Transport Committee on May 4th, 2017

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

I call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities of the 42nd Parliament, 1st session.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing our study on aviation safety.

We are pleased to welcome the following witnesses: Glenn Mahon, Director of Operations, St. John's International Airport, representing the Atlantic Canada Airports Association; Steve Maybee, Vice-President of Operations, Edmonton Airports, representing the Canadian Airports Council; and Harry Gow, Immediate Past President, National, Transport Action Canada.

Good morning, everyone.

Without further ado, I give the floor to the witnesses.

Mr. Mahon, would you like to go first?

You have five minutes.

[Glenn Mahon, Director of Operations, St. John's International Airport, Atlantic Canada Airports Association]

Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson and members of the committee, on behalf of Atlantic Canada's airports, it is a pleasure to be here today as part of your study on aviation safety. The Atlantic Canada Airports Association has 12 airport members responsible for nearly all passenger and cargo traffic in our four-province region.

My name is Glenn Mahon, and I'm the director of operations for St. John's International Airport. While we are a medium-sized airport nationally, we're actually the second-largest airport in the region after Halifax, with about 1.5 million passengers last year. For some context, that compares with about 46 million passengers at Toronto Pearson. By contrast, passenger levels at the 11 other ACAA airports range from about 52,000 passengers at Bathurst to 3.9 million passengers a year in Halifax.

Mr. Maybee and I work closely together as part of the CAC's operation safety and technical affairs committee, and many of his concerns are shared by airports in our region, albeit often with smaller operational teams and fewer resources with which to address similar challenges. Through the ACAA and the CAC, collaboration with the aviation community is a tremendously important way for us to extend our airports' reach and capabilities and address safety-related concerns. It also helps us communicate collectively with the regulator in ways each airport would be challenged in doing individually, on points of mutual interest.

Like Edmonton, St. John's International Airport is one of the 21 national airports system airports that have been responsible for funding almost all of their own operating infrastructure and capital costs. St. John's was the recipient of rare federal funding in 2011 under the Atlantic gateways program, when matching government funds were provided for installation of a $37 million instrument landing system to significantly enhance safety and improve service in our foggy part of the country.

While St. John's is able to self-fund investments in its own safety infrastructure, support from the federal and provincial governments was important to implement this project. For many smaller airports with lower traffic volumes than ours, projects cannot proceed on revenue from operations and airport improvement fees alone. This is why the federal government created the airports capital assistance program.

Designed in the 1990s for airports with fewer than 525,000 passengers a year, ACAP has about $38.5 million a year for safety and security-related projects, safety systems, and essential equipment. While it is not a program for medium-sized airports like St. John's, it is very important for small airports in our region and throughout Canada. Unfortunately, ACAP money has not increased since the program was created 20 years ago, while airport costs have increased significantly over the same period.

Six of the smallest NAS airports, four of which are located in Atlantic Canada, are ineligible for ACAP because they are located on federal land. My colleagues at these airports have been working on a change to this inequity for six years, but while they have received a lot of support from MPs in the region and even Minister Garneau himself, this is still an outstanding safety-related infrastructure concern.

Regulatory requirements for runway end safety areas anticipated in the next few months will further impact an as-yet-unknown number of small airports. Runway upgrades could cost tens of millions of dollars for each airport affected, a significant financial cost burden affecting airports without access to any federal programs, which will have to be covered through an increase in user fees. But there is strong pushback from air carriers against any increase in user fees.

While there is agreement among all that the issue of runway overruns requires attention, airports also require sound justification from Transport Canada for the financial and operational challenges they will be facing in implementing RESAs. Safety improvements should be supported by sound root cause analysis and be proportional to risk.

We have noted some discussion in this committee on safety management systems, which is an invaluable approach to aviation safety that industry experts perhaps need to do a better job of explaining. Rest assured that aviation safety is our top priority and an ongoing team effort. Technology is constantly improving, and we are frequently learning new and better ways to operate airports safely.

The Canadian regulatory environment is evolving and modernizing as well, in part to keep up with ever-changing international safety standards. SMS establishes accountability with its top-down approach and the identification of an accountable executive, which is typically the airport CEO or a senior executive. With senior management support, the system focuses on a proactive approach to safety through the implementation and progressive improvement of regular airside inspection and monitoring programs in an effort to identify and mitigate safety risks before they result in accidents. In essence, it keeps safety at the forefront within the organization.

In closing, I would like to say that co-operation within the industry is one of the greatest strengths of the Canadian aviation sector today, and it is essential in a country like Canada where aviation is built on a network of independently operated local airports.

I thank you again for the opportunity to present here today, and I look forward to answering any questions.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Thank you very much, Mr. Mahon.

I commend you for staying strictly within your time.

Mr. Maybee, you have five minutes.

[Steve Maybee, Vice-President of Operations, Edmonton Airports, Canadian Airports Council]

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, on behalf of the Canadian Airports Council and our 51-member airports, thank you for the opportunity to present before you today on a topic that is important to airports, aviation safety. My name is Steve Maybee. I am vice-president of operations for the Edmonton International Airport, and chair of the CAC's operations, safety and technical affairs committee.

The CAC's members include busy international airports, such as Toronto Pearson and my own airport, but also smaller commercial airports like Saskatoon, Prince George, and other affiliated airports in Atlantic Canada. As the voice of Canada's airports in areas where our members have shared views, the CAC also provides a platform for airport professionals to collaborate among themselves, but also with Transport Canada, the Transportation Safety Board, air carriers, Nav Canada, labour groups, and other partners on ways to improve safety at Canadian airports and within the aviation sector.

Aviation is a very capital intensive industry, and regulatory requirements on airports have grown even more complex since they were transferred from the federal government, starting in the early 1990s. Edmonton International Airport is one of 21 airports designated as part of the national airports system and run by private, non-share capital corporations responsible for shouldering their own operating and infrastructure costs.

Using user fees and funds from operations, NAS airports have invested more than $22 billion in airport infrastructure since 1992. These investments have included not only improvements to the traveller experience, such as renewed terminals, but also airside investments with a focus on improving safety.

Airports work on an ongoing basis with the dedicated professionals in the civil aviation branch of Transport Canada. To the extent that we see opportunities for improvements in government's approach to aviation safety, please understand that the bulk of our concerns are directed at the mechanics and processing within the system itself, rather than at the hard-working bureaucrats who are often as frustrated as we are with the pace of work to support our shared objective for a safe, modern, and efficient world-class airport system. We challenge government and government challenges us. That's how a collaborative air transport regulatory system works, resulting in healthy, robust, ever-evolving regulations, and one of the safest aviation sectors in the world.

Airports are strong and proactive advocates of measures to address safety concerns in the vicinity of airports, for example, laser strikes on air crews and the proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles or drones near airports. Our airport members were very pleased to see Transport Canada recently release an interim order addressing the rapidly growing UAV/drone problem.

Canada's air transport regulations are being more closely aligned with international standards developed through the International Civil Aviation Organization, where Canada has at times played a strong leadership role. This has resulted in a more uniform and global approach to applying aviation standards and regulations.

Aviation safety is an evolving discipline, and we are never done. Budget cuts at Transport Canada have seen periods where the regulator is less able to engage with industry. The CAC and other aviation associations provide valuable forums for transport officials to meet with a broad spectrum of industry professionals, but cuts have impacted their level of service and important collaboration with industry in recent months. There are always choices to be made, but there is a significant benefit to aviation safety when the various components of the system, including Transport Canada, are able to work together.

Resources and the pace of work go hand in hand, and Transport Canada has not been immune from government-wide deficit reduction efforts. In practice, this means officials have to prioritize their work and less pressing items go on the back burner. In one particularly frustrating example, in 2015, Transport Canada finally released the fifth edition of TP312, an important technical standards document that airports rely on heavily. This update took 22 years.

Another concern is the attrition of expertise. Aviation is an industry with highly specialized disciplines. When Transport Canada ran airports, the department was its own institution for training and professional development on airport management and operations. Since the transfer of airports to local airport authorities and municipal governments, airports have had to develop their own proficiency in recruiting, training, and providing ongoing professional development. Airports have developed this capability internally by hiring consultants and by collaborating among airports.

The CAC is part of an international network of airports called Airports Council International, and airport professionals in Canada have access to international training and certification training. Canadians are active participants in ACl's airport excellence, APEX, in safety program, which sees airport leaders worldwide participate in safety reviews at airports. Designed initially to provide peer support to airports in the developing world, it has proven to be an invaluable tool for promoting safety at all airports.

We need to ensure that a healthy pipeline of aviation professionals is in place for Transport Canada. Many of today's inspectors have never worked at an airport, challenging Transport Canada's effectiveness in its demanding function as the country's regulator. The problem will only become more acute as retirements at Transport Canada further deplete the already limited number of highly experienced officials.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Mr. Maybee, could you wrap it up? Are you finished?

[Steve Maybee]

Thirty seconds.

Airports have offered to help by working with Transport Canada on an employee exchange program in which Transport Canada officials would spend time working at airports. Our colleagues at Transport see the merits of such a program. However, getting this set up runs up against the limitations of government hiring practices.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Thank you, Mr. Maybee.

Mr. Gow, you have five minutes.

[Harry Gow, Immediate Past President, National, Transport Action Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee.

Transport Action Canada, founded in 1976, is a non-profit national organization promoting the rights and interests of passengers—air, rail, bus, transit—and advocating for the use of public transit. It's a registered charity.

I shall probably have to summarize my notes a bit because we have to fit everything into five minutes.

Transport Action notes with approval the intent of the federal government to establish an air passenger rights regime with an airline code, and maybe an airline passenger complaints commissioner.

We agree with the recommendations of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre in their report for the Transportation Act review secretariat.

Now I shall present some of our questions. Some of this will be in English, but I will start out in French if I may.

I will now talk about personnel issues.

The first issue is flight crew fatigue management. How adequate are rest times between assignments? Are crew and passengers put at risk by long hours or do crew get adequate respite between and during flights? Are methods of keeping the crew awake effective, or are they a form of harassment that can be counter-productive to alertness? Can video surveillance of the cockpit crew respect the rights of personnel while enhancing safety, or is it rather a form of intrusive micromanagement?

The second issue is the proficiency of foreign flight crews. What will be done by Transport Canada to screen foreign flight crews to determine the adequacy of their training, safety record, number of hours flying, and so on? Is it safe to allow any crew from any other country to operate a Canadian aircraft without approval by Canadian authorities?

The third issue concerns the effects of toxic vapours inside the cabin. Our question has a specific focus on flammable materials such as some wiring insulation—for example, Kapton—and thermal insulation, such as Mylar. What is the current use of such materials in Canadian commercial aircraft? Are counter measures in place to prevent vapours and/or smoke to avoid another disaster like that of Swissair Flight 111?

With regard to enforcement and monitoring of legislation, there are several questions, but we are particularly interested in training and competencies as well as audit and inspection practices and procedures. This relates somewhat to the previous colleague's presentation.

The Canadian Federal Pilots Association recently cited an Abacus study that revealed “broad concern about recent cuts to aviation safety oversight and an ominous sense that a major aviation accident in Canada is likely to occur in the near future”. That's a quote. That's not me saying that. They said it.

At the heart of these concerns are reductions in inspection personnel and Transport Canada's reliance on the carriers' safety management systems in place of regular inspections. Questions include whether any study has been undertaken on the safety effects of cuts to inspection personnel, and whether any empirical evidence exists as to the effectiveness or not of the airlines' SMS, particularly if it is not strongly backed by Transport Canada's own vigilance.

Following the Lac-Mégantic disaster, Transport Canada eventually hired more railway inspectors. Will the aviation authorities at Transport Canada follow suit is the question.

We didn't select sections 3 and 4 for comments or questions, so we'll go to accident intervention in French.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Mr. Gow, unfortunately, I will not let you begin a new part, as your five minutes are up.

[Harry Gow]

It's over?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Yes.

I still want to thank you and all the other witnesses for your efforts to keep things concise, as it is not easy to make a presentation in five minutes. Rest assured that my colleagues have looked at the documents you sent them beforehand to prepare for this question and answer period, which begins now.

Mr. Rayes, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here and sharing their experience with all the committee members.

Before I start asking the questions I have prepared, I would like to check something with you, Mr. Maybee. In your conclusion, when the chair told you that your time was up, you said that you are limited by Transport Canada's hiring practices. Did I understand correctly?

[Steve Maybee]

It goes to the lack of expertise and experience that they have within the inspector group now. There are very new inspectors and those who do have expertise there now will be retiring over the next several years or have already retired, and they only have a limited number of inspectors to interact with industry.

We need additional inspectors, and they need to find ways to get more experience and expertise in airports. These folks have never worked at an airport, and they don't know the operations. We have proposed ways to do a work exchange with Transport Canada, and airports would be willing to take inspectors within the airports and let them work there for a period of time. Going back with that expertise and experience would be highly beneficial for them.

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

Mr. Maybee and Mr. Mahon, I would like to know whether the budget cuts imposed on the Department of Transport have had an impact on aviation safety. If so, do you have any examples to give us?

[Glenn Mahon]

In the Atlantic region, one of the things that has an impact—certainly on accessibility to Transport Canada inspectors—is the high turnover rates. As Mr. Maybee also said, there appear to be declining levels of knowledge and so on associated with these high turnover rates.

I guess if there's anything that we would like to say, it would be to request further support from Transport Canada to their civil aviation inspectors, to get them the training skill sets and resources they require to do their jobs.

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

Mr. Maybee, I am listening.

[Steve Maybee]

Aviation in Canada is the safest it's ever been, but it can always be better. The thing we'd like to see is more interaction with the regulator. We used to have the ability to call up the regulator and ask for a review of the regulations, or to get an interaction with them around the regulations. We don't have that ability anymore, or it's very limited. So we take the regulations....

The airports have to work together. The Canadian Airports Council and ACI are our peer group, and are where we get most of our information and best practices now—not from within Transport Canada. We would like to have more interaction with Transport, and I think it would make the industry safer if we had more ability to do that.

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

Mr. Maybee, why is that interaction not as fluid or as accessible? Is it because there are fewer people and the personnel is overburdened, or is it rather because the department's culture is making it difficult for it to work directly with you, to share information, to be more transparent or to recognize that your expertise may help it improve aviation safety?

[Steve Maybee]

I believe there are a number of things that contribute to it. One is that there are fewer inspectors than there were before, especially within the regions. As I mentioned, the experience and expertise level isn't there, so they can't consult on things as much as they used to be able to.

The other piece of it is that they're busy auditing paperwork. Our SMS programs are very effective; the SMS programs in Canada are better than they've ever been, especially in the airport sector. But when they come on site now, they're auditing paperwork. They're not talking to us about aviation safety. They're not talking about what's happening on the airfield. They're talking about what's in our paper, whether that paper meets what the regulation says, and whether that paper meets what our airport operations manual says. So their function has changed.

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

Mr. Mahon, would you like to add anything?

[Glenn Mahon]

Yes, if I could. I would just like to add that there seems to be less interaction with the regulator from the airport's perspective now, because the oversight process has changed. I don't think that necessarily means that oversight has diminished; it's just a different process.

If you look back 10 years ago, an inspection at an airport would involve a team of inspectors coming in to do a physical inspection of an airfield. They would then develop a report for the airport authority, which would in turn identify the deficiencies and submit corrective actions.

The process now has changed to more of an audit process, as Mr. Maybee mentioned, with their coming in and inspecting our systems more from a documentation perspective.

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

I don't know whether I can summarize that by saying that there is a lot of red tape in the system and that, if it was reduced, efficiency would be enhanced. Is what I said correct?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Mr. Rayes, after that nice summary, I must tell you that your time is up. Thank you.

I must now give the floor to Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you to each of our witnesses for being with us today.

I'll start with Mr. Mahon.

As a fellow Atlantic Canadian, I recognize the fog you mentioned during your remarks. Are there other unique safety concerns specific to the Atlantic region that are different from the rest of Canada?

[Glenn Mahon]

Certainly I think so. When you look at the Atlantic region in particular, there's certainly fog and inclement weather in general. You need go no further than Environment Canada to understand that the Atlantic provinces have some of the worst weather in the country. Dealing with those types of situations requires additional resources, state-of-the-art equipment, and systems and processes to deal with them effectively.