Proceedings of the Special Senate Committee on
Transportation Safety
and Security
Issue 2 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 4, 1999
The Subcommittee on Transportation Safety of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day, at 10:50 a.m. to study the state of transportation safety and security in Canada.
Senator J. Michael Forrestall (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: We are resuming our meetings with industry and government to discuss the state of transportation safety and security in Canada. We are attempting to complete a comparative review of technical issues, legal and regulatory structures, with a general view to ensuring that Canadians can travel as safely as possible.
We are pleased to have back with us this morning witnesses from Transport Canada, namely, Mr. Ron Jackson, ADM, Safety and Security; Mr. Art Laflamme, Director General, Civil Aviation; and Mr. Bob Shuter, Senior Policy Adviser, International Aviation.
Honourable senators, the witnesses will make a 45-minute presentation and then we will proceed to questions.
Mr. Ron Jackson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security Group, Transport Canada: As we make our presentation, we would welcome questions of clarification.
It is a pleasure to be here again. I was one of the first witnesses you heard from when you started this initiative approximately two years ago. My colleagues and I will discuss civil aviation safety in Canada and internationally.
I know your principal interest was the international dimension of aviation safety. However, in looking at how to approach the topic, we thought it would be advisable to first deal with the civil aviation safety system in Canada. We must understand the Canadian civil aviation system in order to understand the international system. What we provide internationally is our expertise as it is derived from the characteristics of our domestic system.
You have in front of you a deck entitled "Transport Canada's Role in Civil Aviation Safety." I propose to start with that document, and then proceed to the shorter document which gives the international perspective.
We have one of the largest and safest civil aviation systems in the world. We are the second biggest system in terms of numbers of licensed pilots, aircraft, and so on, second to the United States. We are a major aviation player. As you will see as we go through the presentation, our safety record is very good.
Our regulatory regime is quite modern. You will see that there have been changes made recently to that.
We will also deal with some of the international aspects.
The next page in the brief deals with the aviation community in Canada. As you know there are five major sectors. Mr. Chairman, I believe you and your colleagues are visiting a number of these components in the course of your work. We have product designers and manufacturers, maintainers, and commercial aircraft operators. Included in that category as well are the air navigation system and the airports. Those are the main components of the system. As the safety regulator, we regulate all of those, and we have standards and regulations which govern the way in which these operate.
Under product design and manufacturing, I would mention that the sales of Canadian aerospace products in Canada amounted to more than $14.5 billion in 1998; and we export close to $11 billion worth of product. It is worth noting that Canada is sixth, if not fifth, in the world in the size of its exports. Canada is a major world player in aeronautical product design and manufacturing. In fact, I believe Bombardier is now the third largest aircraft manufacturer in the world after Boeing and Airbus. This is a significant part of our economy.
The next page of the brief deals with the aircraft maintenance community. There are 10,600 licensed aircraft maintenance engineers in Canada. Those individuals hold a licence issued by our department. These people meet a standard that we establish. They work on the maintenance of aircraft and, basically, sign out and approve that maintenance has been done appropriately. They are employees of aircraft maintenance organizations.
The Chairman: Have we maintained control of that process?
Mr. Jackson: Yes.
The Chairman: Has there been any thought of farming out this responsibility to someone else?
Mr. Jackson: No. Our regulations are quite clear: These people must hold a licence that is to our standard. We issue the licence, and we maintain oversight on this community to ensure that they are operating within our regulations.
The Chairman: Ultimately, you are the guarantors of the standards.
Mr. Jackson: Yes, we are the guarantors of the standards. You will see in a minute how we do that.
In terms of the aircraft operations community, there are 62,000 pilots who are licensed in Canada. They hold a licence that is issued by the Minister of Transport. They meet our standards. There are approximately 2,200 commercial operations in Canada, and there are 28,000 registered aircraft in Canada. That gives you an idea of the breadth and the scope of the community we regulate.
We are the second largest aviation community in the world, second to the United States of America. The next page of our brief deals with the various dimensions of the industry, from the large commercial operators, Air Canada and Canadian Airlines, to recreational aircraft, that is, private pilots who have their own aircraft. That is the breadth of the industry.
On the next page, we deal with airdromes. While Pearson is, by far, the largest airport in Canada, there are 6,000 to 7,000 airdromes in Canada, not all of which are certified. It may be a farmer's field with a windsock where planes may land or take off. There are 650 certified airports. They all must hold a certificate that they meet certain standards that we establish to be able to provide commercial type operations.
While we have 6,000 or 7,000 airdromes across Canada, and while we have 650 certified airports, only 17 of which account for almost 95 per cent of the passenger flow. It is concentrated in a number of our major airports. Pearson airport is by far the largest of the Canadian airports.
Approximately 70 million people fly in Canada yearly.
The next page refers to the air navigation system. Until the fall of 1996, Transport Canada operated and maintained the air navigation system in Canada. In November of 1996, the commercialization deal was concluded with NAV CANADA and Canada's air navigation system was turned over to a private, not-for-profit, non-share capital organization. I believe, Mr. Chairman, you have heard from people from NAV CANADA.
NAV CANADA is a large, air navigation system of approximately 6,000 employees. This page gives you an idea of the number of facilities and the types of systems. What is noteworthy, however, is that, while the Transport Canada has commercialized the entity, we maintain regulatory safety oversight of it. We have issued an operating certificate to NAV CANADA as we would to an air carrier, but we licence the air traffic controllers and provide safety oversight to ensure that the air navigation system is operating in accordance with a part of our air regulations which deals specifically with air navigation services. There is ministerial oversight of their activities.
Senator Roberge: Can you give us a brief outline of what you oversee?
Mr. Jackson: We have taken the various manuals that guide the operation of the air navigation system, the manuals of operation that set out air traffic control procedures and so on, and we have incorporated those by reference in our regulations. Those procedures now have the force of regulation. They must follow what is contained in those manuals. If they do not, they are subject to enforcement action by us for being in violation of a regulation.
We also issue licences to air traffic controllers, and we approve certain programs for the training of electronic technicians, and so on, to ensure that a standard is being maintained in terms of the competence of the individuals in the system.
We approve manuals that are site specific, that guide the operational conditions for individual air traffic control and flight service station-type facilities. These manuals are approved and, as they change the way they operate, they must be re-approved.
Finally, we have inspectors in the field who monitor the process to see that the system is operating in accordance with standards. If they detect violations, they will take corrective action.
We have a safety partnership arrangement with NAV CANADA whereby they have established an office of safety that deals closely with us, and we work together in analyzing occurrence reports. When losses, separation or other things happen in the system, they must notify us. In fact, the regulation states that they must tell us when there is an operating anomaly in the system. Together, we will investigate to ensure that there is no regulatory problem.
As you know, NAV CANADA is in the process of rationalizing their system, and they are changing levels of service. They are consolidating and proposing to close certain facilities or change the type of service that is being provided. The regulations call for and require that NAV CANADA do a safety study before they can make a change in their level of service. That safety study, called an "aeronautical" study in the regulations, is submitted to us and we must agree that there is no unacceptable increase in safety risk as a consequence of them making that change. If there is a safety risk that is unacceptable, the minister can direct that they not make the change. In fact, it is contained in the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act and in our regulations that the minister can cause NAV CANADA to increase a level of service where we feel that there is a safety problem. It is on NAV CANADA's account -- it is at their expense.
Senator Roberge: Can you also impose a condition upon them that they improve their equipment?
Mr. Jackson: Perhaps not the type of equipment, specifically the technology but, certainly, if there is a piece of equipment that is not providing the type of service that it is required to provide for safety reasons, we can have them pull the plug on it or suggest that they change it. I am not sure that we would say to them that their IBM computers are not as good as other computers. However, from a level-of-service point of view and from the view of the safety implications of the service that they are providing, if the equipment and systems that they have are not working properly, then we have the mandate to step in and take corrective action.
Senator Roberge: The U.S. is moving to a new system, as I am sure you are well aware, and I was wondering if it is in the plans here?
Mr. Jackson: Transport Canada, before the air navigation system was commercialized, had a project that was quite infamous at the time called CAATS, the Canadian Automated Air Traffic Control System. If it was not the world leader, it was one of the world leaders in automated air traffic control systems. It was a high risk venture because no one else in the world was at the point that Canada was at. We sold that at the time we sold the air navigation system. NAV CANADA has taken that CAATS project over. I am told, although I cannot corroborated this personally, that they are in the process of implementing that now. This is the year of implementation of CAATS, therefore, Canada will be well advanced in terms of automation. In fact, we are well ahead of the Americans. However, that is NAV CANADA's domain. From a technology point of view, we are more interested in safety.
The civil aviation community is dealt with on page 10. It has a diverse client base and there is a rapid rate of technological change. The important point is that there is a very high public expectation about safety in Canada's public transportation, particularly in aviation. The smallest occurrence draws a great amount of attention. We are mindful of the fact that the expectations are extremely high.
The Chairman: Recently we had a most informative dinner with Charlie Huettner in Washington. Mr. Huettner is the NASA-based individual who accepted President Clinton's $40-million bet that you can hold the line on safety. I believe the cost has now risen to $240 million or $250 million and there is no end to where it will go, however, they are now quietly confident that some changing attitudes and minor changes that have major impact on the flight deck and in support of the flight deck could very well make President Clinton a winner.
Are we in any way participating in that study? They seem to have put together quite an organization.
Mr. Jackson: They have set safety targets. They want an 80 per cent reduction. That is an ambitious rate. As traffic continues to grow and, proportionally, the accident rate does not change, the number of accidents will become unacceptably high. We are very mindful of that. The next couple of pages in the brief will show the Canadian safety record.
The American initiatives are very tough.
The Chairman: We have been through the two times one is two; and two times two is four; and two times four is eight routine. Now we are at two times $14 billion is $28 billion. That is where we are.
Mr. Jackson: We must make a breakthrough.
The Chairman: This preoccupies me somewhat, and I know some of them are interested in it as well.
Mr. Jackson: It certainly preoccupies us.
The Chairman: As part of our overall safety concerns, we may have to consider the safety standards of countries which host Canadian travellers. We may have to consider what Canada can do to protect our citizens overseas in the same way that we protect every flyer who uses the Canadian system.
Mr. Jackson: We will answer that question as we continue our presentation.
The Chairman: That would be important in attaining our statistical goals.
Mr. Jackson: We believe there must be a breakthrough if we are to materially change the accident rate. Technology is good, regulations and inspections are good, but the impetus must be culturally driven.
The Chairman: You refer to the safety culture.
Mr. Jackson: You made that recommendation in your report, and it is key, from our point of view, that safety management systems is the way to go to reduce the accident rate.
The Chairman: You are lucky I am not suggesting that you make it mandatory to carry parachutes on light aircraft. Some people have been laughing at me for two years for making that suggestion, but I would point out that they have saved 90 lives in the United States over the course of the last couple of years, lives that otherwise would have been lost.
Mr. Jackson: The next couple pages show trend lines which I am sure you have seen before. The first one is aircraft accidents in Canada over the period 1988-1997.
Senator Roberge: What is the dotted line?
Mr. Jackson: That shows the trend. The slope is going in the right direction.
The next page shows the accident rate, which is what we were talking about, per 100,000 hours of flying time. The accident rate is going down faster than the absolute number of accidents because there are more hours being flown every year.
The Chairman: That is what we are aiming for.
Mr. Jackson: We believe we need to bring that line down further.
Fatal accidents is the next subject. You will see that there are some blips up and down. The general trend is in the right direction. That is the number of fatal accidents.
The last page contains the number of Canadian-registered aircraft fatalities in that period of time. The rather large spike that you see in 1991 was the Nationair accident in Saudi Arabia.
The Chairman: Is the Swissair accident represented in this data?
Mr. Jackson: Swissair would not appear in this because it was not a Canadian-registered aircraft.
If we compare those numbers internationally, you will see that Canada stacks up very well in comparison with other countries.
Senator Johnstone: I notice that the figures in all cases seem to exclude ultralight aircraft. What is the safety record of ultralight aircraft?
Mr. Art LaFlamme, Director General, Civil Aviation, Transport Canada: Ultralights have approximately 50 accidents per year. They come under different regulations with respect to their construction and the licensing of pilots. The Transportation Safety Board keeps that data on accidents and incidents. They have chosen to separate them from other aircraft types.
Mr. Jackson: The civil aviation safety program in Canada has gone through a dramatic change in the last 20 years or so. Senator Forrestall will recall some of the events that changed the way aviation safety in Canada is regulated.
The first key event was the Dubin commission of inquiry in 1980. That changed the focus of Transport Canada quite considerably. The major changes that came out of the Dubin inquiry were the spinning off of accident investigation from the department to the then Aviation Safety Board and establishing a more rigorous enforcement focus inside the department.
The next major event was the Moshansky inquiry in 1993 which followed on the heels of the Dryden accident. A number of recommendations flowed from that inquiry which directed us toward improving our regulations and the kinds of inspections and audits that we do.
The final key event that changed the face of civil aviation in Canada was the aviation regulations which were issued in October 1996. They are just a little over two-years old, but they are extremely modern, performance-based regulations. They conform with the kind of principles we want to see in modern regulations.
I wish to mention a couple other influences. One is that Transport Canada's role has changed dramatically in the last three years. We have gone from a department of 19,000 employees down to one of just over 4,000. That is due to the fact that the Coast Guard has gone to Fisheries and Oceans, the air navigation system has gone to NAV CANADA, and a large number of our airports are now being run by local authorities as opposed to the department. As a result, our role has changed.
As a consequence, our role is now one of regulator. Formerly, we had operational oversight of the air navigation system at airports. That is a significant change in the way we do business. We have always did that in relation to aircraft, maintenance, personnel and licences.
On the safety side of the department, there have been no budget reductions in the department. In fact, the number of safety inspectors has increased. Notwithstanding the fact that program review has reduced operations in many sectors of government, from the department's perspective the protection of the health and safety of Canadians has not been jeopardized. In fact, we have put more resources into that part of the business.
Senator Roberge: That is contrary to the Price Waterhouse study.
Mr. Jackson: The Price Waterhouse study shows that we have a number of vacancies. However, our budgets have not been reduced. You will see later what our dilemma is respecting the increase in the number of inspectors. The problem is that the industry is booming. Our ability to attract and retain people who are valuable commodities in the private sector is made difficult because of the health of the aviation sector.
The next page in the brief gives a quick overview of the kinds of people we have in the department and the diversity of our professional disciplines. We have pilots, engineers, technical inspectors, dangerous goods specialists, and so on. It is a very diverse group of individuals which maintains the safety oversight of the Canadian aviation system.
The next page of the brief shows a pie chart which depicts the distribution of our inspectors. We have about 1,400 people in the civil aviation safety program in Transport Canada. Some 60 per cent of these are inspectors; 10 per cent are engineers; and 31 per cent are other kinds of people.
If you turn over the page, Senator Roberge, you will see the point we were just discussing. We have increased the number of positions and budgets by 29 per cent in our inspectorate since 1963. We have been able to increase the number of inspectors by 23 per cent, but we are still running a vacancy rate of about 11 per cent, which is what the Price Waterhouse study showed, namely, that we are unable to keep a full roster of inspectors because of the comings and goings of individuals.
Senator Roberge: What are we doing about it?
Mr. Jackson: Collective bargaining on our technical inspector side has concluded, and they are in the process of ratifying a contract as we speak. I am hopeful that will do something to help the attraction and retention rates. Our pilots are going to conciliation next week. I am hopeful that, through the conciliation process, we will be able to make some changes in working conditions and pay.
We have changed the internal classification levels. We have been able to raise the level to increase pay, as well as to create a more stimulating job environment for our inspectors. The important thing, though, is to attract young people into the organization. We must find ways of recruiting people directly out of universities and bring them along as they gain experience.
We are doing that with regard to engineers now. We have aircraft certification engineers who are in high demand by Bombardier, Boeing, Airbus and others. We train them and then they are snapped up and taken away. We are working hard on university campuses to try to find ways to encourage more competent people to join us.
Senator Roberge: What is the difference in the wage scale between the public field and the private field?
Mr. Jackson: In terms of technical inspectors, before this latest round of collective bargaining, the difference was probably somewhere between 25 per cent and 35 per cent for a comparable job.
Senator Roberge: What is it since the new conciliation?
Mr. Jackson: That will narrow down to probably within 10 per cent.
As you know, the public service should never lead the private sector in terms of wages.
In my 25 or 30 years in the department, I have found that people will work for the government for a 10 per cent to 15 per cent pay differential in a comparable job. However, once it is more than that, the attraction outside is too much to hold them.
The Chairman: Should we be a good employer, a fair employer, or the best employer?
Mr. Jackson: We should be fair and competitive.
The next page shows inspectors. We have added 179 positions over the last five years.
The Chairman: Is that the result of new planes coming into the system? You have two models instead of 22 models, do you not?
Mr. Jackson: On the aircraft certification side, it is the growth in the industry that has changed. You have Bell Helicopter, Bombardier, and Pratt & Whitney who are all very active manufacturers with a lot of product. It puts a huge demand on us to certify the product.
The Chairman: It is a consequence of growth?
Mr. Jackson: Yes. On the operational side, more airplanes are flying and there is more activity. As a consequence, you need more people out there providing safety oversight.
The Chairman: I had thought that, when Minister Mazankowski started constraint on the side of defence, that we would easily be able do that and the figures would come down to more manageable levels. I did not realize that, at the beginning of the millennium, the figures would be back up to where they were because of these new classes in an industry that requires constant attention.
Mr. Jackson: Economic deregulation has removed the economic constraints on growth and now people can travel with Open Skies and so on. It has put an additional burden on the safety side because the shape of the industry has changed, and we have had to adapt.
The next page shows the major program activities. We do three main things. We make rules; we take the rules and apply them and approve either people, products or facilities; and we monitor to ensure that the rules are being complied with. I will talk a bit about each of those as we go through.
As far as rule making is concerned, the Aeronautics Act, which is the overriding legislation for civil aviation in Canada, was amended in a major way in 1986. There have been amendments since then of a more minor nature.
The Chairman: For the record, when was the Aeronautics Act proclaimed?
Mr. Jackson: It was in 1936, I believe.
The Chairman: Was it not 1926?
Mr. Jackson: I think it was 1936, because it was DND until then, and then it came over to the civil side. The act is a very good piece of legislation. The modernization was done through the aviation regulations. That was a difficult and complicated area for both the regulators and those to whom the regulations applied. The regulations, the air navigation orders, policy letters, and so on, all complicated matters, were all dealt with in a comprehensive set of regulations in 1986.
The Chairman: I am concerned that, considering the complexity of this matter, the director of operations for any flight may have a tendency to keep the new regulations in front of him and nothing else.
Mr. Jackson: The new regulations are pretty good.
The Chairman: I know they are good; however, I do not want you to get away with too much.
Mr. Jackson: That is the rule structure.
The next page deals with rule making. The civil aviation part of Transport Canada has an excellent consultative process called the Canadian Air Regulations Advisory Committee, CARAC. That is a body of individuals from the aviation industry, unions, a full cross-section of aviation stakeholders who sit and work through them as rules are developed. In other words, we are not developing rules in isolation. The stakeholders are part of the process of developing the rules. As a consequence, we have a much better "buy-in," in most instances, on rules that are in force.
There will always be occasions when, for reasons of urgent safety or whatever, we will feel it necessary to develop rules that may short-circuit that process somewhat, but generally speaking it is a very open, consultative, and transparent process.
The next page refers to approvals. As I mentioned, the rules are in place, and the application of these rules relates to the issuing of approvals of one kind or another. As you will see on page 25, the range of approvals encompasses personnel in terms of licences and certifications to operate in certain ways, aircraft and aeronautical products, facilities, services, and so on. There is a full range of parts of the system that are approved by applying the regulations, and some unregulated areas are listed at the bottom of the page.
The next area is monitoring. The range of monitoring activities includes inspections and audits. We undertake a host of activities to provide for oversight including various spot checks of operations.
Our inspectors, those 800 people who are monitoring the system, are located at airports and at 34 centres across the country. They are not all located in Ottawa or in regional offices. They are out overseeing the industry where the industry operates. You will see a list of the types of monitoring that we do, including in-flight inspections, ramp checks, audits, and so on.
The next page deals with audits which are an important aspect of our system because audits allow us to assess a company or an operator, in the fullest sense. The indications are that we should not let three years go by, as a maximum, before an audit is done. That is the cycle. It could be as frequently as every six months, depending on how well an organization performs. The audit is a comprehensive safety overview of the operation. It is an effective monitoring device.
Senator Roberge: When you audit a corporation or a flight company and you make recommendations, within what time frame must they act upon those recommendations?
Mr. Laflamme: Following an audit, the findings are given to the company, and they are given 30 days to come up with an action plan that is acceptable to Transport Canada. Transport Canada reviews the proposed follow-up to the findings. If they are adequate, fine. If they are not, then they are sent back to the company. We try to do that within a 30-day period. In addition, there is also the possibility of enforcement action being taken. We explore both avenues.
Senator Roberge: I am sure that you keep yourself abreast of what is happening elsewhere. I read recently that the 737 had rudder problems in the States. At that point, do you become involved, and do you insist that the rudders of all the Canadian aircraft are inspected on our 737s ?
Mr. Jackson: Yes. The way the system works is that it is the responsibility of the country of manufacture, the country of certification of the aircraft. In the case of the 737, it is Boeing, and the FAA in the U.S. is the regulatory agency. When such a defect is found, they normally issue an air-worthiness directive stating that all airplanes will have to be inspected on a different cycle or that they will change a certain part or whatever. Canadian registered 737s are subject to that AD, and they will have to do what that calls for. We will ensure that all Canadian operators have the AD and are taking appropriate action.
Similarly, with Bombardier products, where we are the country of certification world-wide, if there is a problem with the Bombardier Regional Jet, for example, we would issue an AD in Canada that would go out internationally. The FAA would ensure that American operators of an RJ would comply with the AD that we issue. It is a reciprocal arrangement internationally.
No discussion of aviation safety would be complete without mentioning Y2K.
As the safety regulator, we look at the year 2000 problem as a potential safety risk. We look at it in the same way as we would any other potential safety risk in the system. We started looking at this problem in late 1987 purely from a safety point of view, but over the course of the last year or so we have surveyed all aspects of the industry. We have made a thorough risk assessment of where we see the potential problems.
Given the nature of the aviation system, failures do happen in the system today in the way the system is built, but there are redundancies built into the system so that contingencies are there to kick in. If a computer fails today, there is a back up to that computer that makes the operation continue to be safe.
We are comfortable that the system will operate safely through the turnover to the millennium. We have been spending a lot of time working internationally with ICAO and with IATA, and with our U.S. colleagues in the FAA, to ensure that we are all on the same footing in ensuring a safe system. We have a high level of confidence that the system will be working.
Senator Roberge: Will you go into more detail on that? It is something that scares a lot of people who will be travelling from January 1, 2000 onwards. Can you ensure that, for example, Bombardier, Air Canada, Canadian Airlines and Canada 3000, in fact, all of the airlines, have on-board systems that are up to date? Do you have an overview of that?
Mr. Jackson: Yes. We have done continual surveying of these companies. We have knowledge about how they are progressing in their conversion plans, their testing and certification plans.
In addition to our overseeing them, they are also actively involved with international organizations through IATA, ICAO and other associations. The Air Transport Association is playing an active role in coordinating the activities of its members, the commercial air operators. The Canadian Airports Council is doing the same thing on the airport side. A great deal of coordination and monitoring is taking place.
In conclusion, from a safety perspective -- and I stress "safety" because there may be regularity problems of one kind or another, for example, bags might get lost or flight information might not be as timely and accurate as it could be on the flight information displays, or whatever -- we are confident that there is no unacceptable risk to aviation safety.
Senator Roberge: Do you have the same level of confidence as it pertains to NAV CANADA's system? In percentage points, to what level are they ready?
Mr. Jackson: The NAV CANADA plan calls for a fully certified system next month. In fact, they have certified components of it over the last several months, and they have been announcing that certain facilities and systems are okay. The last discussion that I had with NAV CANADA indicated that April was their 100 per cent complete assurance month. They have spent a lot of time and effort on it.
We have been working with the manufacturers of our aeronautical products.
Senator Johnstone: You mentioned the possibility of computer failure. I was an air crew member in Bomber Command during World War II. After our boys had dodged enemy planes and were heading back over Yorkshire, which was our base, coming out of clouds we had a lot of collisions, even though we were stacked. I know there have been vast improvements since then, but I still shudder when we come out of cloud, even coming into Ottawa or Toronto. Often, we would feel the wake of another bomber that had just passed. Sometimes it was pretty close. We lost an lot of people that way.
If there is a computer element in stacking and landing aircraft, what backup systems have you been able to devise?
Mr. Jackson: I will let Mr. LaFlamme answer that in detail, but automation of the system today has enabled many more airplanes to fly closer together, resulting in a much larger capacity system than formerly.
Systems do go down. It happens today from time to time -- not frequently, but it does happen that the computers fail in the area control centre and you have to revert to manual control procedures. The capacity of the system is then immediately reduced so that the number of airplanes being processed is less than it would be were the automation working. As a result, airplanes are held on the ground at their departure points and the spacing between aircraft is much greater. As a consequence, fewer people will get to their destination, but they will get there safely.
Mr. LaFlamme: You explained that well, Mr. Jackson. I will only add that the system is in place. Radar failures occur from time to time -- fortunately rarely. Air traffic controllers are trained to increase separation and reduce the number of aircraft in the system so that it can be handled safely.
In addition, most aircraft in Canada of the airline type do have collision avoidance systems on board. We are looking at making that a regulatory requirement in Canada in the near future.
Senator Johnstone: I feel much better knowing that there are collision avoidance systems on board.
Mr. Jackson: The last page in this particular brief refers to program effectiveness. The ultimate effectiveness of this system is: How safe is it? From our perspective, the safety record is going in the right direction. However, we are never comfortable that we are safe enough. As we indicated earlier, we must make some breakthroughs to improve the safety record further, but at least the trend lines are going in the right direction.
I will quickly move to the international brief now, if you would like me to do so.
The Chairman: Yes, but before you do so, I have a general question. This is a personal concern of mine, and it concerns the military.
We have been talking about the civil aviation community in Canada. The civil aviation community in Canada is part of the aviation community in Canada. A significant part of that community, however, is the military. To the best of my knowledge, we rarely enter into discussions of this area. I feel so strongly about it now -- that is, given what is going on in military aviation -- that perhaps it is time for a fresh look at it. Maybe it is time that some of these responsibilities became joint responsibilities.
For example, I have not heard about the military position with respect to Y2K. Perhaps they have one but, if they do, I have not heard about it. It is rather important that we understand how the military is dealing with Y2K. Do they feel confident about Y2K?
Another concern relates to the fact that Canadians are becoming very alarmed at the propensity to put equipment back in the air that should not be flying. My knowledge of general aviation, while not very extensive, is very real. I know what it is make 5 a.m. flights to places like Sable Island and how you must rely on equipment maintenance. I understand the industry to a certain degree; so I am rather distressed when I see activity being carried on by the military that would not be tolerated by the industry.
I am not asking you to answer this, because I realize the sensitivity of it, but it is my judgment, and I am so suggesting to you, that, were Canada's military operations to come under your purview you would ground those aircraft; the Labradors and Sea King helicopters would not be flying. However, their procedures are military and they are kept military and there is probably a reason for that.
The third item which gives rise to my concern is that, as the Canadian military shrinks, there is a greater propensity for growth in conflict of interest. Virtually every F-18 pilot in the country knows every other F-18 pilot in the country. Certainly every Labrador pilot knows every Labrador pilot. Moreover, with every engineer working on those planes, where there is no protection against conflict of interest, human nature comes into play and it is very difficult.
You will recall the incident at Wabush and the incident at Calgary airport -- the low level pass; those two items started me with private members bills years and years ago to separate this as a matter of conflict of interest. However, I will not get into a discussion of that except to ask you a question. Perhaps your policy advisor would be the better person to ask, but you are the boss. Is this a matter of concern at all to the department? I am not asking about the nature of the discussions or anything, but have there been any discussions held with respect to this?
Mr. Jackson: I will let Mr. LaFlamme or Mr. Shuter address that; however, I believe the military now has, or is considering, a policy under which their aircraft shall be civil-certified. In the past, their aircraft were not civil-certified, and considerable work was required to be done to them in order for them to meet the civil certification standard that we are talking about here. Perhaps Mr. LaFlamme could expand on that.
Mr. LaFlamme: To my knowledge, when the Canadian military brings in a new aircraft, they try to have it civil-certified and also to maintain it to those standards. An example would be the Bell helicopter, which they recently acquired. It is up to civil standards. I cannot comment on it more than that.
You mentioned Y2K. The military are very involved in Y2K issues and we do work with them to coordinate our efforts when they are certifying their aircraft and operating them. There is a great deal of liaison as well in the air traffic control system. Certain airports are actually controlled by military controllers, or the controlling is done between them and NAV CANADA. It works out very well from that perspective.
With respect to the other issues that were raised, Mr. Chairman, I am unable to comment.
Mr. Jackson: One thing on the military side that I have some personal knowledge of is air traffic control automation. We talked earlier about the Canadian Automated Air Traffic Control System, which started with us and is now with NAV CANADA; that will be the automation of the air navigation system. The military is acquiring a similar system so that military air space will be controlled in a way that is compatible with the way the rest of the aviation system is being controlled.
Senator Roberge: When you say "similar," do you mean with some variances?
Mr. Jackson: No. CAATS is the name of our automation and MAATS is what the military are having built by the same contractor. It is the same project with the same protocols, but it is in a military environment rather than a civil environment.
Senator Johnstone: The military are very concerned presently about the number of pilots who are leaving the military and going over to civil aviation. Does the civil aviation community consciously try to attract pilots from the military? What is the attraction?
Mr. Jackson: It is the pay. The military pilots are in high demand and it has exacerbated our problem. One of our traditional sources of employees used to be the military. Our civil aviation pilot inspectors would hire former military pilots. That source, for us, is now largely dried up because of the competition from the private sector. In fact, we are facing the same challenge as the military in terms of keeping our pilot inspectors; they are being attracted to the greener fields of the growing industry.
Senator Johnstone: What percentage of your pilots do you lose? With over 62,000 or 63,000 pilots altogether, what percentage would you suggest originated with the military?
Mr. Jackson: I cannot speak for the 60,000 licensed pilots in Canada, but I can talk about our own inspectors; we have approximately 350 pilot inspectors.
Mr. LaFlamme: We looked at this a number of years ago. I do not know the recent figures, but I believe approximately 40 per cent are ex-military. I would need to confirm that. Perhaps we could get back to the committee with that. We are recruiting more from the civil sector than from the military.
Mr. Jackson: If I may, I will now turn to our second brief, which deals with Transport Canada's role in ensuring aviation safety internationally.
You will see from the first page of the brief that there are four kinds of things that we are involved in: We support the International Civil Aviation Organization, the UN international body known as ICAO; we participate in international fora; we give direct assistance to developing nations; and we operate programs that are designed to harmonize our rules with those of other countries. I will talk about each of those points in order.
In respect of ICAO, we are a strong participant in the organization. Its headquarters are in Montreal and, therefore, since it is a UN agency located in Canada, it has a special status with us because we provide a great deal of support to the organization. We are active in its council and in its various technical committees and we are significant players in the development of the standards it comes up with.
We also provide, through ICAO, assistance to less developed countries, where ICAO will provide expertise on the ground in those countries to help develop their aviation system.
Page 4 of the brief refers to the fact that we have experts in ICAO's various regional programs -- the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Saudi Arabia. Indeed, they are all around the world. These experts include airworthiness engineers, aircraft maintenance engineers and operations inspectors; so you can see the kinds of people we provide. That is good from two points of view. First, it enhances the aviation system and safety internationally, because our experts can apply, in these other countries, lessons and methods that we have adopted in Canada. Also, it is good for those countries in the sense that it improves their economic lot.
The next page of the brief covers safety oversight programs, which is something the chairman mentioned earlier. ICAO has adopted a process for looking at the civil aviation safety regimes in various countries in order to determine the adequacy and appropriateness of those safety systems.
That initiative was launched in late 1997 and Canada played a key role in proposing that this be a policy of ICAO. Because we were strong advocates of mandatory safety oversight, we volunteered to have ICAO come and audit us in order to see how well we stack up as a civil aviation authority.
Senator Roberge: According to an article I read pertaining to the international aviation assessment program in the United States, which started in 1997, it goes over the different countries to determine which systems are safe and sound so that the American citizens going to those locations are protected. We do not do that.
Mr. Jackson: We do a couple of things. Let me tell you what we do for our inspection of air carriers coming into Canada. Unlike the United States, we do not have a formal assessment program, but the safety assessment program that the ICAO is launching is actually something that the U.S. pushed for in order to avoid doing their own assessments. Other countries do not like that. It is an extraterritorial situation in which a U.S. inspector will go to another country, inspect its system to the level of U.S. standards and then make a determination as to the adequacy or otherwise of the particular system. Doing it through ICAO is a much more accepted way of doing it.
Senator Roberge: Do they have the funds for it?
Mr. Jackson: They are launching the program and are committed to it. We believe ICAO has the funds. ICAO should put funds into this program, because the way to level the safety playing field around the world is by having an international body doing it rather than individual countries.
On page 6 you will see that we have contributed some money to this program. As I mentioned earlier, we volunteered to have our Canadian system assessed. That was done last October. The final report is not out yet, but we are happy to say that we passed with flying colours. In fact, the quote from the report is that we have a model that other countries should be following. That report will be made public in due course by ICAO. We are quite pleased with the way it came out. Page 7 of the brief has a bit more on the ICAO assessment of Canada.
A question was asked about how we deal with foreign countries. We have a foreign inspection division that conducts safety audits of foreign airlines operating in Canada. Before a foreign country provides service in and out of Canada with its air carrier, we ensure that that carrier is safe and is operating to up certain standards.
Mr. LaFlamme: The United States is looking only at other nations' civil aviation authorities. That is what the ICAO assessment will do. In addition, we feel that it is important to look at the safety of foreign air operators who are operating into Canada.
We have inspectors who are trained in international standards to look at our international operators and, where there is a need, we actually do audits and inspections if they wish to continue to have permission to operate into Canada.
Senator Roberge: Have you experienced any negative reaction to that implementation program?
Mr. Jackson: Only when we have denied a carrier the right to come to Canada or have detained a foreign aircraft because it is not operating to standards.
Mr. LaFlamme: Sometimes they do question why we would go and inspect. It is our decision to allow them into the country or not; if they want to have that privilege, then they have to subject themselves to the inspection.
Senator Johnstone: What sort of protection do Canadians have flying into countries that do not have the standards that we have in Canada?
Mr. Jackson: That is where we come to the safety program. That program is intended to bring those countries that are less safe up to a safety level that is acceptable.
Today, this is largely dealt with by the air carriers and IATA, because they have an interest in ensuring that the places where their member companies and their assets fly are safe. That is the principal check on the aircraft operation side.
On the security side, we do send our security inspectors abroad to ensure that the security at international airports, where either Canadian aircraft or foreign aircraft would be departing to come to Canada, is such that they operate with an appropriate level of security in place. If they were found to be substandard, then we would take measures to prohibit the departure of aircraft to Canada from those countries.
Our cooperative program, COSCAP, which is mentioned on page 9 of the brief, deals with operational safety and continuing airworthiness in the Asia-Pacific. We contribute both money and individuals to help improve the safety frameworks there through training and the provision of expertise.
Page 10 of the brief addresses the amount of money that we put into that organization.
The Chairman: Can you identify areas in the world where it is, perhaps, less safe to fly than in Canadian skies? Where are the difficult areas?
Mr. LaFlamme: The statistics are available and they are published. Clearly, I would indicate that areas such as Africa, Latin America and certain parts of Asia do have significantly higher accident rates than North America and Europe. Eastern Europe would be worse that Western Europe. Those statistics are available and companies like Boeing have put them out.
Mr. Jackson: We could probably make some statistics available to you in respect of accident rates in the various geographic areas of the world, which is the principal indicator of the safety of those parts of the world.
The Chairman: In what areas might air traffic control be a significant factor? Is it pretty much the same everywhere?
Mr. LaFlamme: Yes.
Mr. Jackson: There are two problems that these countries have. First, they have a problem with infrastructure: they do not have the kind of technology necessary for air traffic control; second, and more important, they do not have a safety framework in place. They do not have inspectors or training programs for their aviation personnel. Where we can provide cost-effective assistance is in establishing those frameworks, which will then let them help themselves once the frameworks are up and running. That, it is fair to say, is where we have been putting our focus.
We did some groundwork on this two years ago when, as a consequence of the APEC conferences, we established a group of aviation experts with the 18 APEC countries, essentially to try to improve the level of safety frameworks in those countries. It is all really a matter of common sense. Establishing regulations is generally the first step, because many of the countries do not have any. Next, we establish an academy to train aviation experts, and inspectors and so on. Those are all very easy steps to recommend; they may be difficult to implement, but they are very common-sense oriented in terms of how to improve the safety record.
The Chairman: Certainly, alarm bells should be ringing when you consider the statistics. There must be concern over the increasing rate of accidents. For example, fatalities have increased by 60 per cent over the last five years.
In Canada we tend to say, "That is not Canada. Look at our statistics. Our statistics are very good." However, that is only through the grace of God, hard work and some dedicated souls along the way; and that is not good enough, because we are lumped together.
Do you have any views on the degree to which we should be more actively involved? The structural framework to permit self-help is excellent and would seem to me to be not too costly.
Mr. Jackson: There is a long way to go.
The Chairman: It is fertile ground for improvement.
Mr. Jackson: Yes. We could devote more energies to that area, but our principal mandate is in Canada. We have a responsibility in Canada to Canadians, but we take our international responsibility seriously as well. We provide assistance and resources. We are active participants internationally in ICAO and in other conferences and we will continue to push to raise the safety bar in all of those countries.
Mr. LaFlamme: We are active players in ICAO, and that is the best way to deal with international shortfalls in safety standards. It is very difficult to go from Canada to another country and try to upgrade a safety system. It is best done through ICAO.
ICAO has made tremendous strides in the past few years taking on this issue and establishing effective mechanisms to deal with the deficiencies in the system. Getting ICAO to admit that there are deficiencies in the system is a major point in itself. Secondly, we do not look at our Canadian carriers strictly from an operating-in-Canada point of view. Our inspectors go on Canadian flights overseas to look at the facilities in various airports. I am satisfied that our operations internationally are safe no matter where the carriers fly.
Finally, with foreign operators, we make sure that they operate safely in Canada. From that perspective, we are doing all we can and we are in good shape. However, I must admit that there are certain parts of the world that I find troubling from a safety point of view.
Mr. Jackson: With respect to international safety conferences, on page 11 of our brief, where we mention APEC, we refer to a conference we belong to called the North American Aviation Trilateral, or NAAT, which includes ourselves, the FAA in the United States, and the Mexican Civil Aviation Authority. This group looks at North American standards in an effort to introduce commonality.
Page 12 of the brief indicates that we provide direct assistance. It is a repetition of what I indicated earlier as the things we do.
Page 13 of the brief gives you a sampling of the other types of international assistance to countries such as Turkey, Israel, Jamaica, Guyana, and so on.
On page 14, we talk about training assistance. That is an area in which we can help either by providing training facilities in Canada for foreign individuals who would come here or by working with them on their home soil. We then move to harmonization. We mentioned this earlier when we talked about our aviation products -- that is, having standards worldwide that are accepted and recognized by other countries. ICAO attempts internationally to come up with a common set of standards.
You will see on page 15 of the brief that work is ongoing with Canada, Mexico and the United States. What is more important is that, from an export point of view, considering the big civil aviation authorities in the world, the FAA in the United States and the various European aviation authorities, work is being done to provide for a recognized reciprocal relationship so that our products will be accepted in those markets. A lot of effort goes into that.
Page 16 of the brief indicates the bottom line on that point, namely, that all aeronautical products made in Canada must be certified by Canada before they can be exported. Our hope is that our certification will be recognized by those other countries.
We would be happy to entertain any questions you may have at this time.
Senator Roberge: Our Deputy Chairman, Senator Adams, is it not here today. He has quite an interest in issues relating to Canada's North. During a meeting of the subcommittee with a representative of the territorial government, there was a discussion of various regulatory systems. Senator Adams questioned some of those at the time. For example, with respect to air regulations, have we made any special allowances for hours of flights in the North or for shortened rest periods?
Mr. Jackson: Flight and duty time is an interesting area for discussion.
Mr. LaFlamme: Given their limited seasonal periods, the limited window for operations, as well as the long daylight hours, northern operators did feel strongly that there should be less restrictive regulations for them. I think our position must be: "Safety first." We have standards in place for smaller operators who are more flexible than airline operations, and these apply equally across the country.
To my knowledge, the northern operators welcomed the changes we made about one-and-a-half years ago, and they have accepted them. Also to my knowledge, they no longer have major differences.
Mr. Jackson: There was some controversy early on in the process, but some allowances were made for small operators.
Senator Roberge: What about the transportation of dangerous goods in the north while carrying passengers?
Mr. LaFlamme: The transportation of dangerous goods and the carriage of passengers is always an issue. We do make some allowances to reduce, not the safety requirements, per se, but the bureaucracy associated with them, to facilitate transportation issues in the north.
Some operators would like us to go farther than that. We have made major changes to address these concerns, which should be appearing in the new update to the transportation of dangerous goods regulations that will be coming out.
Mr. Jackson: There will be new regulations for dangerous goods going into Part I of the Gazette in the month of April. That will start a process of simplifying those rules.
Senator Roberge: The last item with which Senator Adams was concerned was the automated weather system in the North.
Mr. LaFlamme: We must admit that there were major problems with the automated weather systems when they were being installed. When these problems came to light, a moratorium was placed on any further installations.
A major study was done between Transport Canada and what is now NAV CANADA, which was part of the Department of Transport at that time, and industry stakeholders. Together they made a number of recommendations that were accepted by the department. Now, before any automated weather station is put in place, a study must be conducted and it must be shown that the installation would be beneficial. In addition, many upgrades have been made to the software in the system, and it is running at almost 100 per cent efficiency. I would say it is not quite 100 per cent, but it is getting close.
Mr. Jackson: Technically speaking, a moratorium was placed on the installation of this equipment, subject to the studies Mr. LaFlamme mentioned. The moratorium is effectively lifted now. Should the studies prove that they can operate safely, they will be permitted.
Senator Roberge: Are you planning to do the same thing on the West Coast? I did not realize the moratorium was lifted for the West Coast.
Mr. Jackson: No. You are talking about lighthouses, perhaps, rather than aviation. I do not know what is happening with coastal AWOS systems. With respect to aviation and AWOS, subject to a site-specific review demonstrating that there is no lessening of safety and that the users are satisfied that the system should go in, AWOS will be permitted.
Senator Johnstone: As recently as last Friday, Charlottetown was changed over to a private operation. Do the same standards of safety regulations apply there as, say, to Halifax or to Pearson International Airport?
Mr. Jackson: Yes, they do. There is an airport operations manual that is approved by our inspectors. It sets out the standards that must be complied with in order for that airport to remain certified. Although the services are different, the safety standards are equivalent across Canada.
The Chairman: I have a series of questions, but there may not be time to answer them today. If necessary, I could leave them with you and you could answer them at your leisure. As we are still at a preliminary stage in our work, it would be helpful to us if you could identify for us any outstanding safety concerns that you have with respect to aviation safety.
We are approximately 10 years into airline deregulation and a period of Open Skies with our neighbours to the south. Have these developments led to any identifiable or perceivable negative effects on aviation safety? You will, I am sure, recall that there was much concern that deregulation and Open Skies would lead to less safe venues of operation.
Are you concerned that, with the increased competition in the airline industry, our carriers might be cutting back on maintenance and repairs in order to cut costs? If that is so, does this necessarily lead to safety concerns, and to what extent?
How do you satisfy yourself that the airline industry is not cutting back on costs that could affect safety? With the devolution of airports to local airport authorities, a subject upon which you have touched several times this morning, what steps are being taken to ensure that there is no cutting of any corners with respect to safety standards that may simply be a function of oversight?
What changes with regard to air traffic control have taken place with the advent of NAV CANADA? Have any of these changes had any impact on safety, either negatively or positively?
What effect does the flight- and duty-time regulation for pilots and crews have on safety, and what role does Transport Canada play in that?
I received this morning a note from Senator Carney, whose office has been in touch with, among others, Captain Foreman, Chairman, Technical Air Safety Division, Canadian Airline Pilots Association. Captain Foreman maintains his concern about flight-deck fatigue. They are apparently in a holding pattern now while the European and other communities sort out their regimes. He would then hope to be able to bring Canada on board. It is a problem. On a scale of one to 10, where does it stand?
What about the new fire-fighting regulations for airports? Is there any indication that they might have a negative impact on safety?
Do we have the Boeing study on pilot fatigue?
Mr. LaFlamme: We are in possession of a number of studies and are doing some of our own studies as well.
The Chairman: Could you make what you have available to the clerk? You will understand what will be of use to us and otherwise.
Mr. LaFlamme: Yes.
The Chairman: There is also the whole question of "preplanned cockpit naps," if you will, and the interaction of the crew.
We are studying these trends. What is the status with respect to Canadian operations?
Mr. Jackson: Fatigue is an issue that cuts across all modes of transport. There is a lot of work being done, not only in aviation but in trucking and rail. There is now a significant amount of research that we did not have 10 years ago in terms of the effect of fatigue on driver or operator performance.
The Chairman: Thank you for that.
Do we have a system of comprehensive safety audits? If so, what happens to the data that you gather? Do we have a capacity to store it and quickly retrieve it in order to examine relevant questions? If it is collected by some other agency, does Transport Canada have access to it? I am sure you would, but you might give us some insight into how that works.
Recent reports indicate that as air traffic increases, if the accident rate remains the same, aircraft will be falling out of the sky on a weekly basis in the very near future. We need your technical experience. The report must have credibility, so we must hear credible evidence from credible witnesses. What can this committee recommend that might address this problem?
Hazardous products are a concern. Senator Roberge touched on that. Is there any further elaboration that you think we should have, such as systems for fighting fires in the hold and oxygen depletion systems? What developments are taking place there?
Also, with respect to new equipment coming into operation in Canada, do we have good, solid guidelines?
Are we in a position today in the development of the industry generally to insist that there be a universal application of fire-in-the-hold control systems? We know that that would be difficult and perhaps prohibitive with respect to older series and older models. There are weight and balance problems and structural and strength problems that would make it virtually impossible to make upgrades.
At the recent ICAO director generals' conference in Montreal, it was agreed to recommend to ICAO council that safety assessments and full audits of member states be expanded to include aerodromes and auxiliary service, and to make these audits mandatory. Where do we stand with respect to that? Are we going in the right direction?
Are you satisfied with the present system of screening at airports in Canada? I am thinking of aircraft ground handling, food service contractors, and other contractors called in from time to time who have access to sensitive or sterile areas over which we have less than a desirable level of control. Could you address that question for us?
If we expect countries around the world to send us clean passengers, they have a right to expect clean passengers from us. How are we doing in that regard? Are we satisfied? What are the weak areas? In other words, if we have a problem, do not be afraid to say so, because we can probably help you to proceed to make it safer by influencing public opinion. That is what we are here for. We have had a lot of discussions and they are still ongoing.
Warning systems and what not to do on the flight deck is a CFT problem. Are we making some progress in that?
I had an interesting discussion recently. A senior pilot told me that a lot of the younger men and women are very uncomfortable flying modern aircraft like the Airbus. They are concerned that they may lose hydraulics. They have a fear that something will go wrong, when there is absolutely nothing wrong, but he told me that it is the same as flying any other plane. They all fly on the same principle. If you make sure that blue is up, you will stay generally out of trouble and you can fly and land these things.
I was surprised to hear him say that. Do we not teach pilots to fly airplanes any more or do we just teach them to manipulate programming devices and computers to do all this for them? I am old-fashioned and I like to believe that the fellow sitting in the left-hand seat knows how to fly the plane. I also like to think he believes that he can fly it, but apparently there are a lot of people up there who have some doubt in their mind.
Could you bring us up to date on the whole issue of the airline manufacturing industry itself? Tell us of any changes that you foresee as being necessary in whatever regard -- not just this area.
You will be aware, as we all are, that Canadian truckers operating in the United States are now subject to mandatory random drug tests. We understand that alcohol and drug testing in the surface transportation industry is a controversial subject. Are we contemplating any changes in the law in this area for air carriers? I have put it that way as opposed to asking questions about zero tolerance, because there are excellent rehabilitation programs and counselling programs in place. However, we must come as near to zero tolerance as is possible. We have the advantage with senior pilots that violations shorten their career, if discovered. Could we have your best view on where you think we should be going? Are we adequately managing the risk or are we bordering on risk-taking in this regard?
The FAA and the United States government conduct their own safety and oversight assessments of foreign countries and they rate those countries. The worst ratings are considered unacceptable. Could we have a list? I ask generally about the areas of Africa and Indonesia -- there are a number of them. With the list, could we have a brief indication of why they would be rated in the category they are? If you could tackle a few of them at lunchtime, I would appreciate it very much. However, you could at your leisure take a look at this, if you prefer. I have favourites here, like parachutes for ultra-light aircraft; if they save one soul, I believe in them.
I have, for a long time, been disturbed by the way we treat survivors and the families of the victims of major disasters. I am very appreciative of what is happening in the United States. Continental has taken a good lead in putting together a workable scenario for airlines. It is excellent. They invite airlines to send their people down for training together. I want this done in Canada, and the sooner it is done, the better it will be.
In spite of the best of intentions and the greatest devotion of everybody concerned in Nova Scotia, we still have difficulty with Swissair flight 111. Air Canada has gone far and Canadian Airlines has gone far, but they have not gone far enough. I want someone to take charge of this. Perhaps it should eventually be the International Red Cross.
The intervention four years ago by the U.S. Safety Transportation Board, which had been mandated to take this matter under their wing and make it work, has brought to light the shame of the way in which we treat the families of passengers. It has become a sore point, as you know. Could you give us a couple of options on whether it should be a government responsibility to commence such investigations and then pass them over to the airline industry in Canada? The Salvation Army do excellent world-wide work in this regard. The International Red Cross are leading in this field.
The previous president of the Red Cross, during her term, spoke strongly in favour of that organization's accepting its responsibility in some of these areas. What we need to have in place is the ability to absorb 50,000 or 60,000 phone calls within hours. An organization must have the capacity to release to the public its cargo and passenger manifests. You will notice that when you travel, you are asked more often now to sign your name. You do it willingly because it makes things easier. We must have an organization capable of recognizing that 300 people, possibly from as many countries, might be travelling to 40 different designations.A grandfather in Thailand may want to know about a Canadian citizen who crashed in Australia. There are formidable problems, but they must be resolved for humane reasons.
Safety issues of the future is the only other topic I would ask about. What new developments exist with respect to safety? Which new issues would we want to include in our operating manuals? If you want, I will speak to Minister Collenette to see that you get overtime to do all this work.
The committee continued in camera.