Canadians for Accountability on Notice of Motion
To the Members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities (SCOTIC)
Re: Motion for Study of Transport Canada's Aviation Safety Oversight and Safety Management Systems (SMS) Implementation
Dear Members;
It has come to our attention that NDP Transport Critic Dennis Bevington has put forward a Motion to the SCOTIC that a study be undertaken of Transport Canada's enforcement of safety regulation and Safety Management Systems (SMS) implementation in the aviation industry. We urge you to support this motion.
As Transport Canada will tell you, SMS is a move away from prescriptive regulations (which specify criteria that must be adhered to) toward performance-based regulations (which describe objectives and allow each regulated entity to develop its own system for achieving the objectives). In other words, industry must develop its own policies and systems to reduce risk, which should include implementing systems for reporting and correcting shortcomings. The International Civil Aviation Organization advocates SMS, but only as an additional layer to regular audits by the governmental authority – in this case, Transport Canada. However, a federal program to audit airline safety procedures has been cancelled and Transport Canada intends to stop regulating the frequency of inspections. The effect is to leave airline operators in the position of balancing business pressures and safety concerns, with minimal or no direct oversight. Canadians for Accountability and its friends at SafeSkies and the Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform (FAIR) have received several reports that this tension is already regularly being resolved by yielding to business pressures at the expense of safety. This suggests the lack of a mature safety culture within the industry, which should be a prerequisite for SMS. Indeed, Transport Canada should have measured this in a risk assessment before implementation. As they themselves admit, however, no risk assessment was conducted (see http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/sms/faq/general/q5.htm). Experience in the rail sector, however, is telling and very disturbing as SMS there has been linked to a skyrocketing rate of derailments. This was reported in 2006 by the Toronto Star (see http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/202496).
You should also be aware that there is a great deal of support for Mr. Bevington’s motion, but that many people within the industry will hesitate to say so on the public record. The reason for this is the very reason that SMS in Canada has a fundamental flawed - there are no guaranteed and effective protections for public or private sector whistleblowers. Far too many individuals have suffered career-ending reprisals as a result of attempting to have safety issues addressed.
One such person is Hugh Danford, who spent 30 years in the private sector before going to Transport Canada as an aviation inspector. When he tried to correct shortcomings in the system, he was harassed, threatened and forced to leave the department. In another incident reported to us, an inspector at a major Canadian airline complained that he was being told to “pencil whip” his inspections. This involved signing off on inspections he had not conducted. In his words, “I didn’t mind doing it for a reading light. But I couldn’t do it for a major issue.” He suffered reprisals and almost lost his job as a result. A third case involved Kevin Gauthier, a former Air Canada pilot, who was fired after he raised safety concerns with the airline and Transport Canada. He reports that no effective action was taken to address his concerns.
Considering this, if SMS is implemented as intended, will you feel safe flying? Will your children be safe flying?
I urge you to read this article from the November issue of The Walrus, titled "Fly at your own risk" for a better understanding of the serious concerns of industry representatives and workers. I also urge you to view the CBC’s Fifth Estate exposé of Transport Canada’s oversight of aviation safety and security, entitled “Riding on Risk”. “Riding on Risk” also provides a damning picture of the culture at Transport Canada, one which we believe is incompatible with an effective safety regime.
Fly at your own risk: http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2009.11-transport-fly-at-your-own-risk/
Riding on Risk: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2009-2010/riding_on_risk/
Finally, I should note that while SMS does not yet have an equivalent on the security side, there is such an initiative is under way under the moniker “Security Management Systems”. Transport Canada’s website provides a description at http://www.tc.gc.ca/tcss/StrategicPlan/Approach/Application/menu.html. The intent is also to extend it to the marine sector.
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
Sincerely,
Ian Bron, Secretary
Allan Cutler, President
Canadians for Accountability
532 Montreal Road, Suite 221
Ottawa ON K1K 4R4
Phone: (613) 304-8049
Fax: (613) 747-9317
