Transport Committee on May 4th, 2017

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Thank you very much, Mr. Deluce.

We will now begin the question and answer period, starting with Mr. Rayes.

Mr. Rayes, go ahead for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our three witnesses, who surely have very busy schedules, for joining us and spending some of their precious time with us.

My first question is for you, Mr. Deluce.

Before it amends its regulations or procedures, does Transport Canada consult companies like yours to gather their input.

If not, are you rather presented with a fait accompli and forced to fight to make improvements to the procedures after suffering the consequences of those amendments?

[Robert Deluce]

Typically, we would be consulted and briefed ahead of time, and have the opportunity to provide feedback. Along with other airlines, we have been providing feedback over the last several years. Very little, if any, of that feedback has been taken into consideration as far as we can see with the notice of proposed amendment now moving to a notice of intent.

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

Given your expertise on the ground, why did Transport Canada not take your recommendations into account?

Previous witnesses talked about a serious lack of interaction between Transport Canada and their company or association. We feel that there is something of a disconnect between the work done by those people on the ground and the work done by Transport Canada in its offices.

Mr. Deluce, go ahead.

[Robert Deluce]

I feel we have a pretty good rapport with Transport Canada in most areas. On this issue, a lot of the response came from several of the airlines that are perhaps larger than we are. We provided good feedback, as did various entities, including ATAC and others.

The thing that has not been taken into consideration though.... Everyone has this objective of ensuring that the result ends up being a system that has a greater level of safety. We all share that. That's a preoccupation with almost anyone involved in this business. To look at the vast array of different types of airlines and services, stretching right from the long-haul international to the short-haul regional to the cargo to the northern communities, and to somehow determine that one size and one set of regulations will satisfy all those different requirements is really ill-conceived. If you look at the consequences, especially at this time when there's such a shortage of flight crews to start with, it will drive a result in a different direction from what was ever intended. You have to understand and appreciate that up front. If that's the direction you want to go, then be prepared for the consequences.

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

I would like to know whether the other two witnesses have anything to add.

[Mark Beauregard]

Our association is not involved with operations of aircraft. However, we are extensively involved with all kinds of regulations. One size does not fit all in aviation, and we see that in spades in manufactured aeronautical products. I urge you to listen to the number of witnesses who have urged you to take that concept into account.

[Robert Donald]

I would simply confirm what Mr. Deluce said about the shortage of pilots. ICAO, IATA, Boeing, and all others have confirmed the global shortage, the global competition for talent. As we get fewer and fewer pilots, it will exacerbate the problem as companies grow.

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

My next question is for you, Mr. Donald. It's related to what you just said.

You talked about recruitment difficulties. What could Transport Canada and the federal government do? When it comes to your companies, your organizations, as well as Transport Canada, we really feel that recruitment of personnel to ensure safety is a problem. We have heard other witnesses say the same thing.

What is the solution? Is it to increase the number of spaces in universities, cégeps and colleges, do more promotion, put more money into the system? It is certainly not to lower the requirements so that more people pass. What is the solution after coming to your realizations, which are shared by many others?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

You have 10 seconds.

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

You can give him more time to answer. This is an important issue.

[Robert Donald]

We have worked very closely with Employment and Social Development Canada to address precisely these issues over the last 25 years. We believe that we need a national strategy, looking at maintenance, pilots, and other crucial elements, such as MRO, to address this issue. Companies can't do it alone. They need government support.

Since I have only 10 seconds left, I will stop here.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Thank you, Mr. Donald.

I now give the floor to Vance Badawey, who has six minutes.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chairman Luc.

I have a question for Porter Airlines. You mentioned the current situation with pilots, and with that I'm assuming also a future situation with pilots and the lack thereof. That said, one of the safety concerns that was just brought to light relates to pilot fatigue. A notice of intent to amend the Canadian aviation regulations was published in part I of the Canada Gazette on March 25, 2017. The proposed regulatory amendments address fatigue risk management systems, FRMS, maximum flight duty times, and the concept of “fit for duty”.

With that said, I have four questions.

One, what impact, if any, will these proposed regulatory amendments have on staffing levels at your airline?

Two, has Porter Airlines implemented FRMS? If so, can you explain the process involved in implementing such a system; and if not, could you explain how fatigue risk is otherwise managed?

Three, what recommendations, if any, would you make to Transport Canada concerning the draft regulatory amendments on FRMS?

Last, how does Porter Airlines currently assess whether pilots and/or crews are fit for duty, and how would practices change based upon the proposed amendments?

[Robert Deluce]

That's a multi-part question. We will see if we can work through that.

For starters, the impact is about 13% to our flight crew roster. That's pretty significant. Also, the turnover rate is the highest we've experienced in the 10-plus years we have been in operation. So it's two things coming at you at one time.

From Porter's perspective, and I think I'd have to say this would probably be an industry objective, it's to make the system safer. I don't think we should just focus narrowly on crew fatigue as an item in itself. Rather, how do you make the entire system safer? The notice of intent and the proposed regulations, in our view, will not make it safer. They will make it necessary for companies to re-examine some of their hiring standards and their training, and/or in fact go the other way and just start to eliminate flights.

In our particular case, if we were to take the opposite view that somehow we could not, because of our circumstances, adjust either our standards or our training or anything else to accommodate the hiring requirement in terms of crewing, and at the same time find ourselves with the shorter supply both now and for several years to come—before that pendulum swings—then we would have to eliminate, based on the present schedule, about 650 flights. That's fairly significant.

I think there was a third part to that. How do we deal with crew fatigue as it exists today? Primarily we do it through our own system of fatigue risk management, using largely the safety management system. We've really had two instances that I am aware of that were freely reported by crew members. And let me tell you; they're not bashful about reporting anything either as an incident or as a hazard. Everything goes into our SMS system.

We've had two reports. Those reports were dealt with through proper investigation and a remediation and mitigation against further occurrences, a full audit, and the implementation of procedures that would deal with those things that were brought forward as potentially being of concern to crew members in terms of potential fatigue as a result of the way schedules were deployed or anything else.

That's our way of dealing with it. It could be formalized in some manner. I do entirely buy into the risk management system, but I don't think just changing things unilaterally and creating one set of rules, right from long-haul international, to freight, to regional short-haul, to small charter operators, to those who deal in remote cities, is a good thing to do. Empirically, I think it will actually drive our joint objective of a safer system in the other direction.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Can I ask Mr. Donald the same question?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

You may ask a question, but the answer will be a short one.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

That's stretching it.

[Robert Donald]

We don't lobby Transport Canada on the merits of different regulations. The trade associations do that. Our role is to help companies and the industry with training and standards to implement those. So we have training around quality assurance and around SMS, and we have national standards developed by industry on FRMS and other things. Our role is to support industry, regardless of what the regulations are. Even in the absence of regulations, we help industry implement best practices.

Is that a sufficient response?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

It's a safe one.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

We have a new master of the short answer among us.

Mr. Aubin, you may go ahead for six minutes.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being with us today.

Before I get to my first question, I'd like to ask my fellow members a question, through you, Mr. Chair. I would like to put forward a motion for the committee's consideration. There is talk of our airports potentially being privatized, and even though nothing has been announced, it seems important and entirely relevant to me that we examine the effect it could have on safety.

But, as a member whose training never stops, I have no choice but to learn from what we experienced on Tuesday. Given the information we received this morning, it would seem that you are right and that Mr. Badawey is not wrong. You can see the situation that puts us in. I don't want a repeat of that. I am simply asking my fellow members whether there is unanimous consent to set aside three or four minutes at the end of the meeting to deal with the matter.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Do I have the committee members' consent to set aside three minutes at the end of the meeting for Mr. Aubin's motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.