Evidence of meeting #57 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 project.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Stephen Farnworth  Vice-President, Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Association of Ontario, Canadian Federation of Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Associations
David Clark  Regional Vice-President, Pacific, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees
Michael Keenan  Deputy Minister, Department of Transport

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)) Liberal Judy Sgro

I am calling to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for the 42nd Parliament, our first session. Today's meeting is pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study of aviation safety.

To the witnesses, my apologies that we had a vote. We don't want to take away too much time from your presentations, so would both of you at the table please introduce yourselves?

Mr. Farnworth, would you like to go first?

11:30 a.m.

Stephen Farnworth Vice-President, Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Association of Ontario, Canadian Federation of Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Associations

My name is Stephen Farnworth. I'm the vice-president of the Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Association of Ontario. I'm a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer, commonly known as an AME, and I hold Transport Canada M1 and M2 licenses.

11:30 a.m.

David Clark Regional Vice-President, Pacific, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees

I'm David Clark, the regional vice-president Pacific of the Union of Canadian Transportation Employees.

11:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Okay.

Mr. Farnworth, would you like to go first?

11:30 a.m.

Vice-President, Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Association of Ontario, Canadian Federation of Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Associations

Stephen Farnworth

Yes, please.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, I represent the Canadian Federation of Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Associations, commonly known as CFAMEA. CFAMEA consists of six regional AME associations. We're all volunteer, grassroots, and membership-based. We represent members from across Canada.

The purpose of our associations is to maintain and enhance the standards of professionalism of the AME and the aircraft maintenance industry as a whole, and to promote the rights and privileges of the AME. We hold in high regard the safety of those persons affected by the aviation maintenance occupations. It is our aim to promote safe practices in the workplace and to recognize that safety is the cornerstone of the aviation industry.

Our regional associations run numerous workshops and conferences across the country to educate and update AMEs and others working in the aircraft maintenance profession. We also provide mentoring for aviation maintenance students and participate with the various colleges as advisers on their aircraft maintenance program advisory committees.

We are on the front line to provide safe, dependable aircraft for the public. Here are some of our concerns and suggestions.

First, the level of service from Transport Canada is slow and delays decisions at the operational level. For example, there can be lengthy times to obtain a ferry permit, or prolonged times for amendment approvals of maintenance policy manuals and maintenance control manuals. These delays mainly originate from decreased staff levels at Transport Canada. Lack of timely responses may result in some operators ignoring established procedures, which, in turn, could affect safety. Transport Canada should shift some decision-making back to the industry but still maintain oversight at all times. There is a system in place for ministers' delegates. It works well. Maybe this model of delegation could be applied in other areas of concerns and bottlenecks.

Second, it's important to maintain an open door policy between Transport Canada and approved maintenance organizations and the AME associations. There are various conferences, symposia, and workshops. Interaction with maintenance communities are an important means of communication. The curtailment of funding for staff of Transport Canada regional offices to attend various aviation seminars and conferences has, and will continue to have, a detrimental effect on aviation safety implementations.

Third, updated curricula are required for approved training organizations to deal with changes in aircraft maintenance and to prepare students for obtaining their license. We recommend removing the detailed standard 566.12 Curriculum and the skills requirement from 566 Appendix B and moving them into an advisory circular or other document that would be easier to amend and update.

Fourth, consideration should be given to unshackling the standards from the regulations in order that they can be updated in a more expeditious manner. Currently, changes seem to be taking up to five years. This is unacceptable. Transport Canada has to maintain oversight and control at all times, but let the industry make minor changes to established maintenance procedures.

In order to maintain a high level of aviation safety, Canada has to be able to maintain a competitive playing field with other countries, and we have to synchronize our rules and regulations with those of the European EASA, American FAA, as well as those of other countries.

While the demand for air services in Canada has been growing at an annual rate of almost 5%, Transport Canada's aviation safety budget has been consistently cut. In the face of such cuts, Transport Canada needs to delegate administrative duties and concentrate on improving the level of service of key safety related oversight activities. We implore the House of Commons to support Transport Canada by increasing the funding for this crucial mandate.

Thank you for this opportunity to voice the opinions of the aircraft maintenance engineers. We look forward to future invitations and we request that you invite us back to make a presentation when you review recreational and personal aviation.

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Thank you very much, Mr. Farnworth.

Mr. Clark.

11:35 a.m.

Regional Vice-President, Pacific, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees

David Clark

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to present the views of our members on aviation safety.

The Union of Canadian Transportation Employees is the national union for most employees at Transport Canada, the Transportation Safety Board, the Canadian Transportation Agency, and many of Canada's airports. This includes all inspectors at Transport Canada, except for the pilot inspectors in the civil aviation mode.

Our members play an important role in all aspects of aviation safety, including the collection and storage of reports, monitoring and inspection, and prevention and emergency services. They are literally the eyes and ears of Transport Canada, local airport authorities, and the agencies charged with aviation safety in this country. They are proud of the work that they do in protecting the travelling public. However, they have also shared some concerns with us.

They are concerned that either some things are not being done, or done properly, and that more can and should be done to better secure the safety of Canadians who travel by air. I'm here today to share their voices and ideas with you.

First of all, I want to note the themes that the committee has established for this review. In order to make use of the limited time that was offered, I want to highlight three main areas of concern that our members across the country have raised. They are Transport Canada's safety management system, SMS; airport firefighting services; and the roles, responsibilities, and workings of the Transportation Safety Board.

With regard to the safety management system, SMS, in our view there continues to be far too much regulatory reliance on SMS, which has turned many of our inspectors into program auditors. It is important to note that the concept of SMS is predicated on the philosophy that companies are compliant with the regulations before they adopt SMS. This is simply not the case for a large percentage of the companies in civil aviation.

We would like to point out that, where SMS is concerned, the United States takes a very different approach in comparison to Canada. It is far less reliant on SMS for regulatory oversight. They actually make a virtue out of whistle-blower protections, and even provide significant financial incentives for whistle-blowers. There should be a similar approach in Canada, with the creation of an independent office of whistle-blower protections where air transportation workers, both within and outside of the government, can report incidents without fear of reprisals.

Reliance on corporate SMS plans is creating a situation where the role of the inspector is to check corporate paperwork. If they leave the office to do an SMS audit, also called an assessment by the department, air operators must be given notice. In some instances the minimum notice period is 10 weeks. This gives the operator more than enough time to correct whatever deficiencies might have been present at the time the SMS audit originated. SMS audits continue to replace direct and unplanned inspections, as opposed to being an additional layer of safety.

Inspectors believe this is a grave mistake. Giving airlines primary responsibility for safety oversight is tantamount to putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. For a long time now, UCTE has gone on record stating that SMS must be an additional layer of safety, and that the audit or assessment function should be completely separate from the direct inspection.

Transport civil aviation inspectors are highly qualified industry specialists, many with aircraft maintenance, engineering, and other important credentials. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much longer I will be able to assert these qualifications. To make matters worse, Transport Canada is mistakenly recruiting generalists for inspector positions, placing emphasis on soft skills such as interpersonal communications and being a team player, instead of industry qualifications, expertise, and knowledge. If the issue is safety, that has to change.

Now, I'll address airport firefighting services. Today, many airports across Canada are not prepared to effectively respond to an airport crash, where fire intervention is essential within the first few vital minutes after an airplane crashes and fire ignites. This is because Transport Canada regulations do not provide for firefighters to rescue passengers or extinguish fires inside an airplane. In the unfortunate event of aviation accidents at airports, the results are more devastating, and the loss of life would be far greater than necessary.

Transport Canada regulations also do not recognize many of the risk factors involved in the complex world of crash firefighting, including aircraft configuration, high numbers of passengers, fuel capacity, emergency medical needs, hazardous materials, and threats from terrorists.

The result of this policy is that hundreds of thousands of airline passengers and crew members face unnecessary dangers on the runways of many airports because emergency response capabilities fall below accepted worldwide standards.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Thank you very much, Mr. Clark.

I apologize for interrupting. It's just that we want the committee to get a chance to get their questions in as well.

Mr. Berthold, for six minutes.

May 9th, 2017 / 11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

My thanks to the witnesses for their testimony.

We do not have a lot of time, but you provided the committee with some food for thought.

Mr. Clark, to go back to what you said about firefighters' response to airport emergencies, the picture you are describing is quite worrisome.

Could you tell us more specifically what your expectations are?

There are all sorts of airports, big and small, actually.

What are you criticizing exactly?

Personally, I have always believed that there are enough firefighters and response teams at large airports to respond to a fire.

Could you elaborate on that, please?

11:40 a.m.

Regional Vice-President, Pacific, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees

David Clark

In Canada, it's actually the amount of product to a spot on a runway, as opposed to actual firefighters. In the crash of Air France, I think it was, at Toronto airport, they were actually running at 17 firefighters, which was the American standard. In Canada that would have been three trucks. On average, that would have been four people. We have a difference—if you're under 150,000 aircraft movements at an airport in Canada, you have no need to have any firefighting capability. A perfect example is Prince Rupert Airport. Under Transport Canada, we had firefighting. Under an airport authority, it comes from the city. The fire truck comes from the town; it's emptied of all product; it's put on a ferry; it goes across; and it has to refill and get to the airport. That would be an average of about two hours before getting firefighting capability to an airport that has 737s coming to it.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Unfortunately, we will not have much time to talk about it, but this is a new aspect that has not yet been raised in our study. Thank you very much.

There is a third point you wanted to discuss, Mr. Clark. I can leave 30 seconds for you to give us some details.

11:40 a.m.

Regional Vice-President, Pacific, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees

David Clark

Thank you very much.

With regard to the Transportation Safety Board, we've noted our concerns about the operations of the TSB on a number of occasions, but these bear repeating because if we do not learn from our accidents and mistakes, we are doomed to repeat them.

Our greatest concern remains the length of time it takes TSB recommendations to be implemented. Historically, Transport Canada has taken years to implement some TSB recommendations, while others have still not been implemented. The TSB needs to be given greater powers—and this was talked about in the Emerson report. This includes the power to direct and implement recommendations where other government bodies or private interests have failed to act or failed to act promptly. Having the power to direct versus recommend would make TSB investigations mandatory for compliance and allow TSB the authority to see recommendations for improvement to transportation safety and security within a reasonable time frame.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC

Thank you very much, Mr. Clark. I'm pleased to have had the opportunity to hear your comments on this, which is also very important.

I’m going to give my remaining time to Ms. Block.

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm very pleased to join my colleagues in welcoming the witnesses here today.

I'll go straight to the point of SMS and what you referred to as generalist inspectors. I've come to understand that our safety management systems were to be an additional layer by Transport Canada to ensure a safe and reliable transportation system. It seems there is deep concern with the fact that it's clear we have abandoned a number of other regulatory means of assuring compliance and have wholeheartedly gone to the SMS system. That is troubling, from what I hear from witnesses.

I also want to raise the issue of generalist inspectors. We heard from, I think, Transport Canada early on when we were doing our rail safety study that we now have multimodal inspectors. I'm assuming that's what you mean by a generalist.

I just want to give you a chance to follow up on that.

11:45 a.m.

Regional Vice-President, Pacific, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees

David Clark

If we look in the dangerous goods inspectors, that role has gone down from different modes of travel, be it rail or civil aviation, into one mode that will do everything.

As I specified, someone coming into Transport Canada before as an inspector would bring lots of years of experience in the sector from private industry. When I talk about generalists, they're realistically more able to do the paperwork and to follow a system, as opposed to being a technical expert on an issue—and, yes, going across many different modes.

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Thank you very much.

Now Mr. Iacono.

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I also thank the witnesses for joining us this morning.

I would like to make a brief comment.

I understand you are concerned about the decrease in funding and oversight, but it started when the previous government was in power. Our government is in the process of increasing funding again for oversight.

Do you think Transport Canada’s regulatory oversight and inspections are effective and sufficient right now?

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro

Who wants to take that question?

11:45 a.m.

Vice-President, Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Association of Ontario, Canadian Federation of Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Associations

Stephen Farnworth

The frequency of Transport Canada audits and inspections has gone down considerably. The audits themselves, as my friend Mr. Clark points out, are more based on SMS procedures in the larger airlines.

When it comes to smaller maintenance outfits, audits don't happen as often as they used to. It could be that we expected an audit yearly or every two years. Now, five or six years goes by before there's an audit. They're better than they used to be when the audits are done, because it used to be that Transport Canada seemed to come in with a big—

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Farnworth, you say five or six years. The present government hasn't been in place for five or six years. So in the last two years what has happened?

11:45 a.m.

Vice-President, Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Association of Ontario, Canadian Federation of Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Associations

Stephen Farnworth

I don't care which government's in power. For aviation safety it doesn't matter which government's in power. What's important is that Transport Canada continues to be funded and to act no matter who is in the big chair.

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC

You're referring to the last five years. I'm just trying to highlight that under the new government, which is reviewing this, if you're referring to five years then those audits weren't being done under the previous government. Is the problem still—how do I say it—going forward or has there been any change in the last three years?

11:45 a.m.

Vice-President, Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Association of Ontario, Canadian Federation of Aircraft Maintenance Engineers Associations

Stephen Farnworth

I've seen it stabilize. I haven't seen it change, but in the past two years we've had several instances where we used to have Transport Canada come to our workshops and association meetings, where they could speak to hundreds of aircraft maintenance engineers, but their money has been cut and they do not show up at our workshops anymore. And that's current. That has happened in the past couple of years.

I'll give you an example. Our past-president of the Atlantic AME Association sent a letter to Mr. Garneau on May 26, 2016. He was complaining that in the Atlantic region, where they had been operating these things for 35 years, there seems to be reduced spending and no one was available to come to the workshop held last year.

Mr. Garneau's response was on August 22, over three months later. This level of response, whether it be audits or with regard to maintenance policy manuals within our various companies, is just taking too long. It's too hard for the businesses to keep reacting that way, and if you do keep taking so long to react, it means that we will find shortcuts to go around.

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Clark, what's your read on that?

11:50 a.m.

Regional Vice-President, Pacific, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees

David Clark

I'm sorry, can you just ask the question one more time?