Proceedings of the Subcommittee on
Transportation Safety
Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 1 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 26, 1996
The Subcommittee on Transportation Safety of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 12:19 p.m. to organize the activities of the committee.
[English]
Mr. Timothy Ross Wilson, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as clerk of your committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair of this subcommittee. The floor is now open to receive motions to that effect.
Senator Adams: I nominate Senator Forrestall.
Mr. Wilson: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Adams that Honourable Senator Forrestall be chair of this subcommittee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Mr. Wilson: The motion is carried. Congratulations, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Forrestall: Thank you for your confidence.
Senator J. Michael Forrestall (Chairman) in the Chair.
The Chairman: Before we go any further, we must now name a deputy chair. The committee is open for nominations.
Senator Spivak: I nominate Senator Adams.
The Chairman: We have a nomination for Senator Adams. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: I welcome you and extend my congratulations.
Senator Adams: We will work well together.
The Chairman: We need a motion to authorize the Chairman and Deputy Chairman to invite witnesses and to schedule hearings.
Senator Mercier: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. We require a motion to authorize the committee to print 200 copies of our proceedings and to authorize the Chair to adjust this number from time to time to meet demand.
Senator Adams: I so move.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. We need a motion, pursuant to rule 89, to authorize the Chair to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the printing of evidence when a quorum is not present.
Senator Adams: I so move.
The Chairman: Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: We need a motion to allow the subcommittee to request the Library of Parliament to assign research officers to the committee.
Senator Mercier: I so move.
The Chairman: Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. We need a motion to authorize the Chair to direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries and draft reports.
Senator Spivak: I so move.
The Chairman: Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried. We require a motion that, pursuant to Senate guidelines for witnesses' expenses, the subcommittee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses to no more than two witnesses from any one organization and payment will take place upon application.
Senator Adams: If we deal with, for example, provincial government representatives in transportation, would that apply? Are we talking about just ordinary persons?
The Chairman: We would certainly not pay for government witnesses. We do pay for private citizens. We will make ourselves available so there can be no question of government witnesses not coming for any reason. We will go into their bailiwick where necessary. We will take a close look at this. For example, should we go to Vancouver or to Victoria, the capital of British Columbia? These are the questions.
Senator Adams: Sometimes people are interested to talk to us in the committee but small business people cannot afford to fly down here. If we only go to Yellowknife, some people may come from Rankin Inlet or Iqaluit. Can we repay those people? That is my concern, to provide those people with transportation.
The Chairman: Senator, we have $15,000 in the budget to accommodate witnesses whom we would like to hear or who may want to come for their own purposes and we deem it advisable that they come. This motion would limit the repayment to cover two witnesses per organization. We would not want 8 or 10 people to come with one or two spokespeople.
Senator Adams: I live in the Territories. I would be more concerned for witnesses from places like Baffin Island and Iqaluit.
The Chairman: We will get into that question later. We are particularly pleased that you are here to give us that insight.
Senator Adams: I just did not want to hear that the whole territory could only send two people.
The Chairman: The whole world can come, senator, but we will only pay for two per organization, regardless of whether the organizations are in the same community.
Senator Adams: Thank you. I move that motion.
The Chairman: Is there agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
We must discuss meeting times. Presently it is Thursday at twelve o'clock. Most of us are free of encumbrances between twelve and two o'clock on Thursday.
Is this a convenient time for us to meet? It certainly is for me. We would intend to serve a light lunch if that is what is needed, believing that we are putting senators' time to good use. I do not like sandwiches day in and day out. Can I have comment?
Otherwise, I will entertain a motion to meet Thursdays, as a rule, from twelve to two o'clock. We would meet in this room because it is available and, later, across the way in our new room when it becomes available.
Senator Adams: We just finished meeting with the architect this morning.
The Chairman: You would be very much in agreement with that.
Senator Adams: It may not be until after March.
The Chairman: Do I have agreement on that motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Regarding the work plan, you should have before you an issue paper prepared for us by Mr. Bruce Carson and Mr. John Christopher. I would invite them to walk us through this brief introduction.
Mr. Bruce Carson, Consultant to the Committee: Mr. Chairman, I prepared a preliminary issues paper which highlights the major issues arising out of some of the modes of transportation that I think we will be studying. This will be something that we add to as we go along and hear evidence.
After discussions with John Christopher, I think the plan would be to have a series of hearings in Ottawa over the next few weeks to give us the background to a number of transportation safety issues. Once we are comfortable with that, perhaps around the end of November, we could make our first foray out of Ottawa, perhaps out west. Perhaps Mr. Christopher could speak more to the witnesses we might be hearing in Ottawa in the next few weeks.
Mr. John Christopher, Researcher, Library of Parliament: A tentative witness list has been prepared. The idea would be to hear from the major players, the umbrella groups, which are all located in Ottawa. We would start with the Transportation Safety Board, which covers all of the modes. Next would be Transport Canada, which is still responsible -- despite what some people think -- for regulating safety in Canada through all the modes. We would then hear from some of the bigger organizations -- the Canadian Trucking Association; the Canadian Automobile Association; the Air Transport Association of Canada; NAV CANADA, which is the new privatized air traffic control group dealing with air traffic control in Canada; the Canadian Coast Guard, which is undergoing a major review right now of all its programs, especially its safety-related programs and its navigation programs, which have a major impact on both coasts, the St. Lawrence Seaway and the St. Lawrence River. We will probably want to hear from the Railway Safety Act Review Committee chairman who has just undertaken a major review of railway safety. It will be reflected in the new railway safety act which is before the house right now and will be coming to the committee probably before Christmas.
That will give us a good background of the issues in transportation safety before we go on the road. The intention, I think, is to schedule our first trip sometime toward the end of November after we do this initial set of hearings in Ottawa.
The Chairman: I suppose we anticipate that this will take six or seven meetings.
Mr. Christopher: Somewhere in that area if we do two witnesses per meeting. We may give the Transportation Safety Board a two-hour slot because they cover all the modes and maybe Transport Canada a two-hour slot, depending on what they will cover. We could probably do two witnesses per meeting after that.
Senator Spivak: Do you want a discussion of the issues, or are you not getting into that at the moment?
The Chairman: I do not think we will get into it in particular, unless you wish to.
Senator Spivak: I am not talking about getting into the issues, but the list of issues.
The Chairman: Sure.
Senator Spivak: First, with respect to marine issues, you do not mention anything about recreational boating, but you are going do include it.
Mr. Carson: That is right.
Senator Spivak: Second, the Seadoo issue will be a major issue in Canada. It relates to safety and noise pollution, safety in terms of young kids using them when no one would ever let the kids out on the road.
Third, in terms of trucking, you mentioned a couple of acts, but will we look into the CN Privatization Act and what effect it has had on the issue of roads and trucking. The increase in the number of trucks on rural highways has been geometric. It is just incredible. There is talk of subsidizing the repair of highways to accommodate this, which in my view is the wrong way to go. Rather, you want to have shortline railroads. No one talks about that in terms of safety; they merely talk about it in terms of cost. I am wondering if that is a piece of legislation you might look at.
Fourth, I want to deal with the issue of speed. The United States is regulated. I was just in Europe where they think it is nothing to drive 220 kilometres an hour. That is the normal speed. I do not think speed is a federal issue, is it?
The Chairman: I want to make a comment or two about jurisdictional issues. Perhaps this is as good a time as any.
The committee is very conscience and aware of the various jurisdictions involved in some of these questions. To the best of our ability, we will make sure that those rights are guarded as we pursue our study and inquiries.
Having said that, I do not feel that anything is sacred. We will look at those matters which affect the Canadian public.
Your suggestion with respect to boating safety, while it is within provincial jurisdiction, the federal arm of justice is the enforcer because they come under the Inland Waters Act and other acts that are federal in nature. There is a mixed jurisdiction here, and we will be very careful.
As we meet with the responsible provincial authorities, this question will become clearer and our work will be enriched and enhanced by those discussions. I do not think the two will clash.
Senator Spivak: No, they should not. I find more and more in discussions with federal officials that they are so nervous about provincial matters that they retreat from areas which are really federal. I think the political climate has brought that about.
I am not a member of this committee, but I am very interested. Is it possible to use the federal act to look at safety issues which are definitely within federal jurisdiction? You mentioned inland waters. What other federal acts govern safety in recreational boating? In other words, I am looking for triggers.
Senator Atkins: I have two questions. One relates to the advent of shortline railways. If you remember, when we were dealing with the shortline from Truro to Sydney, there was this question about whether they would maintain the level of safety by privatizing. Can that be more specifically addressed as more shortlines appear across the country?
The other question relates to marine safety and inland waterways. I get the impression, in view of the cutbacks that the government is making, that they are short-cutting many of the safety measures that have been implemented in terms of marking inland waterways. I do not know why I get this feeling. I have heard that the Coast Guard is just not applying the same measures of safety that they have applied in the last five years.
Mr. Christopher: The Coast Guard is undergoing a major cost-recovery review. They have been mandated by the government to recover a lot of their cost.
One of the things they are looking at is removing a lot of the aids to navigation. The aim is to reduce as many of these as possible while not compromising safety.
Senator Atkins: But they are compromising safety.
Mr. Christopher: They are definitely doing away with some navigation aids, there is no question about that. They are on the list to appear here in Ottawa, and I am sure there will be lots of questions for them.
Senator Spivak: You have triggered my memory, Senator Atkins. With regard to the Sea-Doos, there was a very terrible accident in Ontario last year, I believe, in which a Sea-Doo made a turn trying to spray water on some young women who were canoeing and killed them. There was some question about a safety or mechanical problem with the Sea-Doo. As well as the noise issue, there is a major safety issue.
Senator Atkins: I am familiar with the Saint John River valley, for instance. Clearly there are many hazards that they are not marking anymore. I think that is a big mistake because more pleasure boats are coming up from the United States into these inland waterways and these hazards are not marked on the charts.
Mr. Christopher: Part of the cost-recovery review by the Coast Guard is how to make recreational boaters pay for aids to navigation. It is an administrative problem and a political problem. The Coast Guard feels that it does not recover a cent from recreational boaters for aids to navigation.
Senator Spivak: They pay taxes.
Mr. Christopher: It is done through the tax dollar, and that is the ongoing debate. The review should be over by the end of this year, so you will have a good opportunity to question the Coast Guard when they are before the committee.
The Chairman: I wonder if we could have a motion that the work plan as presented be generally adopted, subject to changes that arise.
Senator Adams: Before we do that, I would like to continue along the same line as Senator Spivak regarding boating accidents. There are many accidents on the lakes, and I wonder if we could get some witnesses before us to speak about this issue. Are there any organizations that could appear? Who can speak on that matter besides the department?
Mr. Christopher: The safety board can talk about it, as can Transport Canada and the safety council. They are quite involved with water safety.
Senator Spivak: There is a group in British Columbia which went to court to try to have Sea-Doos banned.
Mr. Christopher: We can hear them when we are out in Vancouver or Victoria.
The Chairman: Perhaps we might want to call the RCMP, or whoever is responsible for the enforcement of these regulations.
Mr. Christopher: The provincial coroners are usually called in.
The Chairman: In addition to that, we need specifically a motion that the subcommittee travel to Western Canada during the last week of November, 1996, and to the rest of Canada during the last two weeks of February, 1997.
Senator Spivak: By all means.
Senator Mercier: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Can we have some general agreement that press communiqués be approved by the chair and the deputy chair or their representatives before they go out on behalf of the committee?
Senator Atkins: So moved.
The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
The committee adjourned.
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 5, 1996
The Subcommittee on Transportation Safety of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 4:00 p.m. to study the state of transportation safety and security in Canada.
Senator J. Michael Forrestall (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Colleagues, the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications Subcommittee on Transportation Safety has been authorized to examine and make recommendations upon the state of transportation safety and security in Canada, and to complete a comparative review of technical issues and legal and regulatory structures with a view to ensuring that transportation safety and security in Canada are of such high quality as to meet the needs of Canada and Canadians in the 21st century.
The committee is authorized to permit coverage, to travel as necessary, to engage the necessary staff, and to print sufficient copies of its proceedings.
The members of the committee are myself, chair; Senator Willie Adams, deputy chair; Senator Lise Bacon, chair of our standing committee of which we are a subcommittee; Senator Léonce Mercier, and Senator Fernand Roberge.
Since the Senate will be sitting during the week we had anticipated travelling, I would appreciate a motion to change our arrangements from the last week of November to the first week in December.
Senator Bacon: I so move.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Colleagues, for your information and so that you might better plan your time, on Sunday, December 1, 1996, we hope to travel to Yellowknife and spend the night there. On Monday, there will be hearings and, in the evening, we will travel to Edmonton.
On Tuesday, December 3, we will hold hearings in the morning. At lunch time, we will visit the air traffic control facility and continue our hearings in the evening.
On Wednesday, December 4, we will hold hearings in the morning and, in the evening, travel to Vancouver.
On Thursday, December 5, we will hold hearings all day in Vancouver. During the day, we will visit the Coast Guard search and rescue facility, with which some of you are already familiar.
We will hold hearings in the morning of Friday, December 6.
I look forward to the work which we are about to undertake. It will be lengthy but we believe it will be accomplished with precision and that it will be of assistance in the area of transportation safety in Canada.
Our witnesses today are from Transport Canada.
On Thursday, we will hear from Mr. Johnson from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.
Pursuant to the schedule of the Senate, we will resume our work on November 26. That will be a relatively busy day which may require us to sit for an extended period into the evening. We will hear Mr. Brian Hunt, president of the Canadian Automobile Association; Louise Pelletier from the Transportation Association of Canada; Mr. John Crichton president and chief executive officer of the Air Transport Association of Canada; NAVCAN, for whom Mr. Crichton may also be the principal witness; the Canadian Coast Guard; the executive director of the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, Mr. Herb Simpson; and the Canada Safety Council. If possible, we will hear from the former chairman of the Railway Safety Act Review Committee.
On November 28, we will hear from the president of the Canadian Trucking Association, Gilles Belanger and from Mr. Bob Evans, executive director of Canadians for Responsible and Safe Highways.
Today we are fortunate to have with us, from the Department of Transport, the Assistant Deputy Minister, Mr. Ron Jackson, who is with the Safety and Security Group, and Mr. Gaétan Boucher, Acting Director General of the Safety and Security Secretariat.
Might I call on you, Mr. Jackson, to begin your presentation?
Mr. Ron Jackson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security Group, Department of Transport: It is indeed a pleasure to be here today and to have the opportunity to speak with you on the launch of this most important initiative. Transportation safety is something which is very important to us, as it is to all Canadians, and anything that we collectively can do to improve our record is of great importance.
I am the Assistant Deputy Minister for Safety and Security in the Department of Transport. The Department of Transport, as many of you know, is going through a significant transformation. As events have unfolded over the last year or so, we are becoming a safety regulator and transportation policy maker and no longer an operator of the transportation system. This is manifested by the transfer of many of our airports which we used to operate, the recent sale or transfer of the air navigation system and all of the air traffic control facilities to NAVCAN. It also involves the transfer of the Canadian Coast Guard from Transport Canada to Fisheries and Oceans, which really leaves the Department of Transport with, as I said earlier, a regulatory oversight role and a policy-making role.
We have prepared for you an overview of safety regulation and the safety record of federally regulated modes of transport in a deck of papers that were tabled with you earlier this afternoon. If you wish, I can quickly walk us through this to show where we, as the federal Department of Transport, fit into the overall safety framework of transportation in this country.
As you know, the federal government has safety responsibility in several modes totally, and in others a shared responsibility. On the first page of the deck, we list the various modes and the role that we play.
The first, and not the most important, is civil aviation. That is a totally federally regulated mode of transport. As you can see from the notes, we are responsible for ensuring safety through licensing and ensuring compliance with our regulations and statutes by pilots and air carriers, and by ensuring that all aircraft meet all safety standards. Later I will get into a bit more detail on just how we do this and what our record is with regard to safety in that mode.
On the marine side, once again, it is a federal responsibility. It is shared, however, between ourselves and the Coast Guard. With the separation of the Coast Guard from the department, there is now a distinction in terms of regulating the marine transportation system. We regulate ships and crews from Transport Canada for large commercial vessels. Recreational boating and the smaller end of the boating spectrum is regulated by the Canadian Coast Guard.
You mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the possibility of having the former chair of the Railway Safety Act Review appear before you. Railway safety is, once again, largely federal, but there are provincially regulated railways. The provinces do have some responsibility for things such as grade crossings and trespassings for those railways they regulate. We will speak in a little more detail about where we fit in there.
The road safety side is truly a shared responsibility between the federal government, the Department of Transport, and the provinces, where we as the federal government have responsibility for regulating the manufacture and establishing standards of new vehicles. The remainder of the road safety system is largely in provincial jurisdiction. We do have some shared responsibility in areas such as trucking where we work on national safety codes to ensure some harmonization amongst the provinces and ensure that inter-provincial trucking is given the appropriate attention.
The Chairman: I apologize for interrupting. We will want to get into some of these areas in some depth, not necessarily today, but later on. It might be helpful to the members of the committee if we had the line responsibilities of the department. For example, in transportation and dangerous goods, who do we call?
Mr. Jackson: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, we can give you names of contact people or a chart which sets that out.
The Chairman: That would be most helpful.
Mr. Jackson: I will attempt to outline the federal responsibilities, who is responsible, and where the provinces play a role, and who specifically has that role.
The transportation of dangerous goods is primarily a federal responsibility. However, the provinces do replicate our standards in provincial regulations, and they enforce provincial standards which are consistent with the federal standards in each of the provinces.
On the transportation security side, we have responsibility principally in the air and marine modes. There is some work underway in rail where we would have in place security regulations to ensure that, in times of crisis, the system remains secure. You can see from the notes that the provinces have responsibility for trucking and bus and urban transportation.
There are some other players in the system. Mr. Chairman, you did mention in your opening remarks that you will be seeing a number of them. Perhaps the most important other player in the safety game is the Transportation Safety Board. As you know, it is an independent agency that does not report to the Minister of Transport but rather to the President of the Queen's Privy Council to ensure its independence from the responsibilities of our minister. Its principal role is to determine causes and contributing factors with respect to transportation occurrences or accidents. It makes recommendations that should be responded to by our minister and other interested parties by taking corrective action to ensure that deficiencies they detect in the system are corrected.
The Civil Aviation Tribunal is another player in the transportation safety game. It is an appeal mechanism which hears appeals from individuals who have been sanctioned in some way through the aviation regulation enforcement process. It will review enforcement and licensing decisions of the Minister of Transport.
Another key player is the Canadian Transportation Agency, previously known as the National Transportation Agency, previously known as the Canadian Transportation Commission. It is the economic regulator. It has a marginal impact on safety. Its main area of interest is in economic regulation, but there are some areas where its decisions could have an impact on safe operation, such as rail-line abandonment. Its interest is principally economic in nature but it could have safety overtones.
The role that we play in the department and how we contribute to a safe transportation system is really in partnership with all the individuals and groups I mentioned previously. Mainly, we are in partnership with the industry that we regulate. Basically, we can provide a regulatory framework that, if complied with, will provide for a safe transportation system.
Accidents within the system are often caused not necessarily by non-compliance with regulations but other factors that are quite outside the domain of the regulator. I think this is something you will see as you look at accidents, incidents, occurrences and so on and just what it is that contributes to them. You will find that the range of reasons for an occurrence or an unsafe situation existing can go from there being improper regulations, to non-compliance with regulations, to technical problems with equipment, to human factor problems, all of which can contribute to an accident.
Having said that, our main role as regulator is to ensure that we have a framework of rules, regulations and statutes which, if complied with, will provide for a safe system, and that we have in place mechanisms to ensure that those we regulate are in compliance with those rules. We do that through licensing, certification, inspection and enforcement. Not the least of our activities is involved in education awareness and promotion, that is, to seize people with the importance of operating safely and complying with the rules.
I would like now to speak about Canada's safety record in those modes over which we have jurisdiction. I am proud to say that Canada enjoys one of the best safety records in the world. It is always difficult to make these types of comparisons because of the way in which various nations collect safety data and the way in which that data is analyzed. The bottom line is that Canada enjoys an enviable record. There is room for improvement, but we need not take a back seat to anyone.
Over the last number of years, the record has improved. I believe the tables which have been distributed to members of the committee give an indication of what the trend lines are in each of the modes.
It is difficult to say that the transportation system as a whole, and all modes taken together, are improving or not improving. We really have to look at it mode by mode and form our opinions on that basis.
Another point that I should make is that absolute numbers of occurrences, accidents or fatalities are only meaningful if we can put them in terms of the activities of that particular mode. In other words, they have to be a factor of use. As we look at the bar charts in the handout you will see how that is factored in.
The first table deals with the aviation accident rate. We have calculated these numbers on the basis of accidents per 100,000 hours flown. On that chart, you will see that the line denoting the period 1987 to 1995 is fairly flat. There is slightly downward trend which indicates a modest year-over-year improvement.
Moving to the marine accident rate chart, you will see that the activity factor we use is per 1,000 vessels arriving and departing Canadian ports. You can see some ups and downs in the chart. If you were to trend it, you would see a modest downward trend.
The rail chart shows where statistics can be a bit problematic. In 1992, the criteria for reporting railway accidents was changed. More accidents were reported in 1992 than were reported before that time. The upward trend you see on that chart, which is accidents per million train miles, is, perhaps, a bit misleading. However, when I speak more about each of the modes individually, I will deal with some of the concerns that we have with certain modes and aspects of the safety record. Again, if you were to modify this chart and take into account the change in reporting, you will see that the trend is going in the right direction.
The chart concerning aviation fatalities is fairly constant. The rather large jump that you see in 1991 is due to the Nationair accident that occurred in Saudi Arabia. If we discount that, we have not had a major air carrier accident in Canada since then. The fatalities are fairly constant.
With respect to the marine mode, again, there are some ups and downs. Generally, there is a fairly constant record in terms of marine fatalities.
We are particularly proud of the statistics concerning the roadside fatality rate. The absolute numbers are high in that we have fatalities running at the rate of 3,200 to 3,500 per year. Other modes pale in comparison. The numbers show that 100 individuals are killed in the aviation mode each year as compared to 3,500 on the roads in Canada. There is a great disparity in terms of absolute numbers there.
The point of pride is that, since the early 1980s, the number of fatalities on the roads has come down dramatically from in excess of 5,000 or 6,000 in the mid-1980s to 3,500 today. This is due largely to safety initiatives undertaken by the North American automakers. The wearing of seat belts and measures of that sort have greatly reduced the number of fatalities. I will speak a bit more later about some of the specifics that pertain to the road safety record.
The resources at the disposal of the Department of Transport which are used to regulate and ensure safety are significant. This chart shows only the federal share. It does not include the resources expended by the provinces or municipalities which have roles to play, particularly on the automobile safety side.
In 1996-1997, it is forecast that we will spend some $183 million for some 2,100 persons in the safety regulation, security and safety promotion business. Of those 2,000 some odd personnel, roughly one-half are located in the field doing inspections and ensuring compliance. There is probably an equal number here in Ottawa developing regulations. There are some programs which are centralized in Ottawa which I will mention a bit later in my remarks. For example, the automotive safety regulatory program is totally Ottawa based. There is not a regional component to that particular activity.
To give you some salient points, perhaps we might spend a moment on each of the federally regulated modes. The first page of the brief gives you some idea of the size of civil aviation in Canada. There is a large community of owners, operators and pilots, approximately 70,000 in Canada. There are approximately 28,000 registered aircraft. It is a significant activity. Canada enjoys the second largest civil aviation community in the world, and it certainly is an active sector of the transportation world in Canada.
Aviation is the fastest mode of transportation. As indicated by the statistics, over the next 20 years domestic traffic is expected to grow by 60 per cent and international traffic to North America and the Pacific Rim is expected to double. It is an active part of the transportation system.
I should also mention that the manufacture of aeronautical products is an important export sector of our economy. We are somewhere between sixth and fourth in the world in terms of an exporter of aeronautical products. They are an important part of our economy.
There are a couple of current issues in the aviation safety world that I should mention. The first is NAV CANADA. Basically, we have taken on a new role here with respect to a previous member of our own family. When the air traffic control system separated from the Department of Transport last week and became a private sector, not-for-profit corporation, it became a regulated entity -- that is, part of the system containing the air carriers and the aerospace products manufacturers.
Today, we are regulating the air traffic control system in a manner analogous to the way in which we regulate an air carrier. They have been presented with an operating system which basically gives them the ability to operate, and a set of regulations that apply to them, namely, Part VIII of the Canadian Aviation Regulations. Various manuals and procedures, and so on, that used to be administratively controlled through the department are now incorporated by reference and they must comply with them as if they were a regulation or a standard. We have a new organization that is basically set up to provide safety oversight to the air traffic control system.
That is the first issue. Once again, this way of doing business is only four or five days old.
A number of regulatory reforms should be brought to your attention, the most significant of which are the new Canadian aviation regulations which were put into force on October 10 of this year.
Once again, a new piece in the regulatory framework, the CARs, Canadian Aviation Regulations, took a series of standards, rules, policy letters and air navigation orders that were in existence, and embodied all those regulations in the eight parts of the new aviation regulations.
There are a couple of issues within the aviation regulations that are of interest. I raise them because they have become public in one form or another and are bound to do so over the course of your study. One is flight and duty time regulations. This concerns the hours of work and rest that pilots and air crew must have, as contained in the regulations. Last week, Marketplace had a show on the adequacy, or otherwise, of our rules.
The other rules that will be contentious in the future are the aircraft fire fighting regulations, which will establish criteria for the application of fire fighting capability at Canadian airports.
Another issue in the aviation mode that I should mention in passing is a study that was launched a few months ago which focuses on the safety of air taxi operations. There have been a disproportionate number of accidents in that particular sector of the commercial aviation business involving small commercial operators. These are operators that primarily provide services in the north, on the West Coast, and in northwestern Ontario. We believe that we should pay particular attention to the safety culture that exists in that sector of the commercial aviation business. This task force is taking a look at that and is due to report back early next year.
The Chairman: What about weather?
Mr. Jackson: In what respect?
The Chairman: If you are to look at the air taxi operations and other forms of light, general aviation, does it include a continuing review of weather?
Mr. Jackson: With this particular sector, we are looking at the safety culture -- that is, the way in which they manage safety in their own operations. As you well know, one of the causes of accidents with the air taxi world and the air commuter-type of commercial operator is pushing the weather. Clearly, that is something which will be zeroed in on.
If you are referring to the provision of weather services, forecasting, and so on, that is another whole issue that has now been taken over by NAV CANADA as part of the weather information process. I think we will be dealing with the particular issue that you are concerned with in this review.
On the marine safety side, there are some indicators on the page showing the number of ships on the Canadian registry, the number of inspections, examinations, and so on.
The one area I should like to bring to your attention is the number of port state control inspections and port state control detentions. This is a Canadian activity in partnership with other nations. We are signatories to two memoranda of understanding: One with a group of countries on the Atlantic, and another with a group of countries on the Pacific, the so-called Tokyo MOU for the Pacific and the Paris MOU for the Atlantic. Basically, this is a move by nations to ensure that unsafe ships are not permitted to travel the seas.
As a target, we are to inspect 25 per cent of all foreign ships arriving in Canadian ports to ensure that they comply with internationally recognized standards. Of the of the 1,348 inspections that were done last year, 149 vessels were detained because they were found to have deficiencies of one kind or another.
The international community and the activity in this area is very important and it is the only means at our disposal to ensure that the safety of shipping on the high seas is ensured.
There are a few issues on the marine safety side that are probably worth noting. Given the amount of tanker traffic, particularly on the West Coast between Alaska and the lower 49 states in the U.S., marine environmental protection and tanker safety is something on which we are ever vigilant. There are commitments and standards in place that will see improvements to the design and construction of tankers over the next 15 or 20 years. Again, in partnership with the Coast Guard, there is a requirement to have a pollution prevention and response system in place to deal with this traffic.
I do not think it is any surprise to anyone that the marine safety law in Canada is badly in need of updating. The Canada Shipping Act is a piece of legislation that is very old, outdated, and is clearly not a modern piece of legislation in any respect, although there are some sections of it that have recently been put in place. It is an act from the 19th century and we are now moving into the 21st century, and it clearly is in need of overhaul. We do have initiatives in train to do that.
We also expect to see some amendments to the Canada Shipping Act tabled in the House of Commons early in December. A number of miscellaneous amendments are required to fix a few things that are absolutely essential to be fixed. That should tide us over until the major overhaul.
I have mentioned port state control.
The final point on the marine safety side is marine pilotage, which I know is familiar to many of you as a long-standing issue. The Canada Marine Act, which is going through clause-by-clause in the Standing Committee on Transport today, I believe, will put in place some measures that will address issues in the domain of marine pilotage.
I have only a few remarks on railway safety. I have given you some indicators as to the number of federally regulated railways, the number of miles of track and so on. The number of miles of track, of course, is being reduced, as the railways are rationalizing their networks.
A number of issues need to be addressed as to safety. The first is the amendments to the Railway Safety Act. The Railway Safety Act amendments, I expect, will be going through clause-by-clause some time around the end of this month and then forwarded for further progression in the house. It is something, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, that falls out of the Railway Safety Act review that took place a couple of years ago. This will put in place a number of amendments attendant to that review.
We continue to be concerned with safety at crossings, and trespassing accidents, and we do have joint work with the industry and other parties underway to deal with that.
The final point is one that has become a concern this year, and that is the number of main track derailments and runaways. Partly due to the severe winter that we had in many parts of the country, the number of main track derailments jumped considerably this past spring, and there has been, I think, an increased awareness by both railways, probably heightened by the Edson tragedy, that there must be increased vigilance. Both railways, CN and CP, are making intensive efforts to improve safety, and we are increasing our activities in those areas as well. I just highlight that for your interest.
On the road safety side, once again, the numbers here are very large compared to the other modes of travel. For example, there are 17.9 million registered motor vehicles. The number of recalls was 1.1 million in 1994. There were 3,300 fatalities, 240,000 injuries and $10 billion estimated in terms of collision costs and costs to society, although that figure is probably closer to $20 billion, maybe $25 billion.
Clearly, small percentage improvements in the road safety domain make very large absolute number improvements in terms of loss of life, injury and property loss.
There are a number of issues on the road safety side. One is occupant protection, air bags in particular. There has been a great deal of press in the last few weeks in terms of the changes and the problems with air bags, first of all, with respect to low-speed collisions for people not properly restrained, and then more recently the interventions of the department and the cooperation of the automotive industry in terms of their plan to depower air bags.
Emission regulations, I will not go into, but it is a continuing concern as we improve the performance of motor vehicles in that respect. I think the important aspect here is our continued partnership with the provinces in safety promotion. Again, you see three areas where we and our provincial counterparts, all of the Ministers of Transport or the ministers responsible for motor transportation administration in the provinces, would focus promotional activities jointly. Those areas are: to reduce impaired driving; increase the seatbelt wearing rate from the 92 per cent of drivers today who wear seat belts to 95 per cent in the next five years; and to launch a task force to look at dealing with high-risk drivers, people that take undue risks and put others at risk because of their activities. We feel that there is real payoff to be made by those sorts of activities.
As to transportation of dangerous goods, again I have a few key statistics as to the numbers involved with respect to products, shipping and so on. The one number that jumps out is that, in Canada there are 27 million consignments of dangerous goods each year -- a very large number. This entails a great deal of effort on the part of the provinces and ourselves to ensure the safe handling and containment of these goods.
The main issue with respect to dangerous goods is the new set of regulations that is currently in the works, and this will be a first for us in that these will be plain-language regulations. They will be put in a form that all of us can understand, not just the lawyers. We hope that, by putting them in that form, we will be able to achieve a better rate of compliance which is our end objective in all of this.
Operation Respond is on here as a issue because, as you may be aware, a private member's bill is being debated with respect to coming up with a means of responding to emergencies by having data available to all firehalls across the country to give them better information in the event of such an emergency. We will see how that bill fares.
Two securities are currently in play. One is airport security, which is an on-going issue. Awareness in Canada has been heightened because of the crash of TWA flight 800 and the activities that the Americans have undertaken. There is the Gore Commission, as a result of which Vice-president Gore made some recommendations which are being adopted by the U.S. DOT. We must be mindful of the Canadian situation and react accordingly.
As to the future, just quickly, safety oversight is what we will be left with, and it will be our principal mandate. We will have to continue to exercise stewardship over those properties and assets that are not commercialized and remain with the government. The principal role will be to set and enforce standards for safety and security. As we look at the Department of Transport going from an organization of some 20,000 people down to an organization of something in the neighbourhood of 4,000 to 5,000, we will be coming at matters in a more multimodal approach rather than unimodal. Our main interest will be in ensuring good safety promotion through information and communication with our stakeholders. We need to ensure that our rules are harmonized both internationally and with our provincial partners, and that we have better data.
As I have mentioned to many in conversations I have had, we need to have a better handle on how well we are doing, to be able to make international comparisons and to make better risk management decisions based on solid data and information. I think in that way we can target our oversight resources in a more effective manner.
With that I will stop and try to answer any questions.
The Chairman: May I say at once that is a splendid overview for us and presents us with a great base from which to start our studies. I see about three years' work so far.
We hope to develop a list of safety issues as soon as possible so that we, as a committee, can pursue and analyse them.
Could you list for us the most pressing transportation safety issues in Canada at the present time? Could you also tell us which mode of transportation provides the greatest concern from a safety point of view and perhaps elaborate as to why?
Mr. Jackson: If I may respond to your second question first, the mode that gives us the most concern is not necessarily the mode that is at the highest risk. We deal with public perception in many of these things. The mode that tends to enjoy the highest profile in terms of safety is the air mode. Whether the risk in terms of numbers shows that it is the greatest risk or should be of the greatest concern, I am not sure. Air safety tends to have the higher profile for a number of reasons.
The mode that probably is of the greatest concern and is the one where I feel that, as a regulator, we can make the largest impact, is the motor vehicle mode, simply because of the absolute numbers. As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, a marginal improvement means enormous benefits to Canadians.
With respect to our regulatory framework and the rules that we have to work with, the marine mode requires the most work in terms of modernization and increasing its effectiveness.
Those are three areas, from different angles, that concern me in quite different respects. The first is public profile, the second is absolute numbers and the third is the regulatory framework within which we have to work.
The Chairman: I share your concern as to the need for a new maritime act or code. I appreciate the codification work that has been done on the aeronautic side. It was relatively early in the 20th century that the Aeronautics Act came into effect. It would be my hope that we might be able to persuade you to address both of those before the turn of the century.
[Translation]
Senator Bacon: For example, if we look at rail transportation, it is a fact that main track car derailments are a frequent occurrence in Canada. A total of 156 derailments occurred in 1995. The condition and geometry of the track accounted for 36 per cent of all derailments. I am not sure whether this means that 36 per cent of all derailments could have been prevented in 1995. How can we deal effectively with this problem?
Can rail companies be held accountable for the condition and geometry of the tracks? Is it possible to rectify these dangerous conditions at key locations?
Mr. Gaétan Boucher, Acting Director General, Safety and Security Secretariat, Department of Transport: Regarding the 36 per cent of all main track derailments attributable to the geometry and condition of the tracks, this is the first time I have heard this figure quoted, perhaps because of my lack of expertise in the area of rail safety.
The increase in the number of incidents this year has been rather noteworthy. As Mr. Jackson stated in his presentation, this rather startling increase could be due to a number of weather-related factors.
Our inspections have not uncovered any particular trends this year compared to previous years.
As for the geometry and condition of the tracks, this is obviously a very technical engineering question. Our inspectors are experts in this field. To my knowledge, we would have to check with them, as I am not in a position to comment on this. Is this really the reason for the dramatic increase noted this year? I think we will take this question under advisement and check with our engineers and inspectors to see if indeed this does explain the increase in the number of derailments.
Senator Bacon: Still on the subject of rail transportation, it is a known fact that almost all rail accidents occur at level crossings. It would even appear that half of all accidents occur at level crossings equipped with automatic gates.
What steps could be taken to prevent such accidents at level crossings, even at those equipped with automatic gates? Should these automated systems be modified?
Mr. Boucher: As you know, in response to the recommendations of the committee reviewing the Railway Safety Act, the provinces and the federal government have agreed to set up a task force to look at ways of reducing accidents at level crossings by 50 per cent over the next 10 years. I hope that this task force will look into the causes of these accidents and suggest ways of resolving this problem.
As I am not an expert on the subject of rail transportation, it is interesting to note the many questions linked to human behaviour. We sometimes read that people grow impatient and decide to go around the gates and so forth. I do not know what impact this has on the number of accidents.
A program called Operation Lifesaver has been introduced to educate young people in the schools and to heighten their awareness of the problem. More and more emphasis is being placed on programs designed to educate people and make them aware of the dangers associated with level crossings.
I hope that the task force will be able to propose some solutions. As I said, the goal is to reduce the number of accidents at level crossings by 50 per cent over the next 10 years.
[English]
Senator Adams: Mr. Chairman, I did not expect the witnesses to have all the accident statistics and details, especially for road safety. I see cars-only numbers at 675,000 accidents causing 3,000 deaths and about 240,000 injuries.
According to this, the numbers have gone down quite a bit since 1987. However, railway freight is being cut back and there are more and more big trucks moving on the highway. There are still many injuries and, every year since 1994, about 3,000 people have died in car accidents.
I know the causes could be anything from drunken driving to bad roads. However, I am concerned about the increase of big trucks on the highway. Sometimes when you are driving, you meet a big truck and you can feel the pressure, as if there are only a couple of inches between it and your car. It is especially dangerous in the wintertime to meet a big truck because it splashes up enough slush that you cannot see anything for a few minutes. Things like that are more dangerous than meeting other cars.
I live in a remote area of the Northwest Territories. We do not have many regulations for marine safety. I see the marine safety figures are kind of up and down. How do you plan to increase marine safety, either in the area of accidents or drownings?
Mr. Jackson: On the motor vehicle side, the statistics here represent a consolidation of all accidents on the roads, whether they involve trucks or passenger automobiles. In terms of preventive matters and where we can improve the death and injury toll, the wearing of seat belts is the greatest single measure to provide the most significant payback.
If we were to look at causes, I believe alcohol plays a part in 40 per cent of road accidents. That is why you see the focus on reducing impaired driving. The numbers are startling. By attacking that particular phenomenon, we believe we can make a significant dent in the accident toll on the highways.
Senator Adams: You say 40 per cent of these accidents are caused by alcohol. People must wonder what we are doing here in Canada.
The Chairman: That 40 per cent figure due to alcohol seems very high. Is that increasing?
Mr. Jackson: That is from the latest published set of statistics. I believe the 40 per cent relates to the number of fatalities related to alcohol.
Senator Adams: Does that have any bearing on the marine statistics?
Mr. Jackson: I do not think so.
Senator Adams: There must be some drinking-related boat accidents.
[Translation]
Senator Bacon: Discussions are ongoing with the United States on the subject of trucking and drug testing. What is the status of these talks?
[English]
Mr. Jackson: That is not an area which falls within our specific area of jurisdiction. I understand it is in trucking that it is principally in force. I believe reciprocal measures are in place. Those Canadian trucking firms which are doing business in the U.S. are subjected to the same rules as the American firms.
Senator Bacon: Would that be an interprovincial responsibility?
Mr. Jackson: I am not sure, senator. I understand contracts have been established between the trucking association and a testing firm. I can get more details for you on just who is engaged in it.
Senator Bacon: I have another question on aviation.
[Translation]
Senator Bacon: The majority of aviation accidents that occurred in 1995 apparently involved private pilots who had logged less than 1,000 hours of flying time. Should licensing requirements for new pilots be revised? Should more stringent criteria be applied to extend their training periods and thereby avoid accidents of this nature?
[English]
Mr. Jackson: The regulations that apply to private pilots and recreational aviation have recently been revised. There is a new recreational aviation policy which has established some new standards and requirements for pilots.
The onus has changed slightly from what it used to be. I would be happy to provide more information on the recent changes for, hopefully, a safer, private, recreational community.
The Chairman: Do we play an active role or an observer's role in the area of interprovincial trucking? Do we take a lead? Do we try to break down some of the barriers that remain in the way of common standards?
Mr. Jackson: Yes, senator, we do, through the Canadian Council of Motor Administrators. That is a body of both federal representatives and provincial regulators.
The Chairman: That is not the transport ministers' conference?
Mr. Jackson: At the ministers' level, that is the decision-making body. There are officials who work in various working arrangements subordinate to the ministers' committee.
The National Safety Code was developed some years ago to establish a set of minimum standards for trucks. There are weights and dimensions and rules and so on, all embodied in this particular set of standards. Interprovincial harmonization has largely been obtained on this.
The Chairman: Is that a sort of one-stop trucking process?
Mr. Jackson: It is to ensure that trucks will not be stopped at provincial borders because they met the standards of the province they were leaving but did not meet the standards of the province they were entering. They will be recognized through the provincial statutes.
The federal government has provided funding to this particular program to help the provinces come up with mechanisms to enforce and develop rules and to put in automated systems, et cetera. This is all done to ensure a harmonized system across the country.
We have put $25 million in, and there is a new $25-million program to run between now and the year 2000.
The current initiative, which is the hot topic of the day, is a safety audit program. This entails an inspection and comparison of trucking companies to determine their level of safety regardless of the province in which they are located. That would provide some common form of audit or inspection.
Mr. Boucher has just reminded me that we are facilitators. We are basically providing funding to ensure that this harmonization takes place.
The Chairman: Has the federal government or the Canadian Standards Council given any thought to the question of specific standards in the construction of truck tires?
I travel frequently from Halifax, Nova Scotia, to Ottawa by car. I have no idea how often my life has been threatened. I have seen serious accidents. I have seen pieces of rubber flying through the air that would horrify anyone in their path. This seems to happen in both winter and summer.
Every province has perhaps 30 or 40 small trucks with personnel who just go along the highways to pick up pieces of truck tires. These exploding tires make a major contribution to unstable driving conditions on Canadian highways.
Are we doing anything? Deregulation has been some years in effect. We have seen less-than-carload lots moving completely away from rail and on to trucks. Sooner or later, either the trucks or the cars will have to get off the Trans-Canada Highway. I do not know which will go first. That situation is being widely examined now.
This is one of the reasons that I am chased quite willingly off of the main highway. It is not because I like wandering through communities, as pretty and picturesque as they may be but, rather, because I am afraid of exploding truck tires.
Are there any standards that can be examined? I presume these are re-cap tires that are causing the problem. Can you shed some light on this matter for us?
Mr. Jackson: Our main role is with respect to new vehicles and the standards of original manufacture. Our standards for the manufacturers are related to those vehicles.
When the vehicles are in use, the jurisdiction becomes a provincial responsibility. They must ensure that the vehicles remain safe on the road. I do not know whether the National Safety Code, in all of its various aspects, deals specifically with the issue of tires and wheels and so on. We can certainly check to see whether there is anything in there on that.
Mr. Boucher: I do not think that is covered.
The Chairman: If it is not covered, it certainly should be.
[Translation]
Senator Mercier: You have identified road transportation as the second most pressing mode in need of improvement. Since more people use roads compared to the air and marine modes, I believe that compliance with road safety is an important issue.
We have trucks on the highways hauling one or two trailers. We have vehicles that are nearly 200 feet long passing us or pulling up along side of us; with the wind, it is not easy for motorists to hold the road. Moreover, the number of trucks on the highway is increasing, as is the size of the vehicles. Large, heavily loaded tractor-trailers weigh a great deal and the highways are not very safe. Often, we see come across signs indicating that the highway is monitored by helicopters. I am on the road a great deal and I have never seen a helicopter yet determine that a driver was speeding.
Furthermore, truck weigh stations are not stringent enough. After the sixth or seventh truck, the official grows impatient. The same truck may stop at another scale and in response to questions, the driver says that he has not been fined, when in fact he was fined at a previous inspection point. This system has some shortcomings. We do not feel safe on the roads with these behemoths, because they are neither regulated nor monitored. Will the situation improve or worsen? In some areas, heavy loads pose a serious threat and this is an extremely important concern today. When we consider the number of vehicles sold, that is 17 million plus 3,200 trucks or carriers, and these are registered ones, this is not an indication of real numbers. Can anything be done to improve safety at this level?
[English]
Mr. Jackson: Again, the principal area of responsibility for what you have described, senator, is provincial. Our ability to facilitate, encourage, fund and provide for a better safety regime is something for which we are constantly striving to improve.
As you go through your study and talk to the other jurisdictions, you will discover that a large number of initiatives are underway. The provinces are not idly watching this situation go on. They are taking steps. It is important, as the federal government, with an interprovincial responsibility to see trucking safety enhanced, that we reinforce our efforts.
Unfortunately or fortunately, it is not solely our responsibility.
Senator Bacon: There will be more shortlines developing over the next few years as the major railway companies give up some of their lines.
Is there a federal responsibility of regular inspection or spot-check inspection?
Mr. Jackson: We do inspect some shortlines, senator. Others are a provincial responsibility. Many of the provinces, however, are following our standards. We are working with them to ensure that we make the most efficient use of inspection resources and so on.
As you can appreciate, some provinces where shortlines may be appearing may not have any other provincially regulated rail lines, so they are not equipped to deal with a shortline. We then enter into an administrative arrangement with the province to do it on their behalf. Even though it is a provincially regulated entity, we will do it for them. We stand ready to take that on if the provinces are not equipped to do it themselves, however, we do work with them to ensure that a consistent level of standards is being applied to the short lines.
Senator Bacon: Are the same standards applied in all provinces?
Mr. Jackson: We would be working to see that the provisions of the Railway Safety Act and the level of safety in that legislation is provided.
Senator Adams: Is Transport Canada solely responsible for the TransCanada highway? Sometimes municipalities are responsible for maintenance and snow removal. How much control do you have over safety on the highways?
Mr. Jackson: In terms of the construction of roads and ensuring that the highways are in good shape, the federal government does have a program through which it has been investing in highways over the years. I do not know what the plans are for the future with regard to whether that will continue to be the case.
Senator Adams: Near Ottawa there are two highways; the 417 and the 401. Is the 401 the TransCanada?
Mr. Jackson: The 401 is provincial as well.
Senator Adams: So the Department of Transport has no control over safety on provincial highways?
Mr. Jackson: No.
The Chairman: Mr. Jackson, could your department make available to the chair copies of the regulatory reforms which were tabled on October 10; the Canadian aviation regulations, as well as some literature, if you have it, on flight and duty time regulations?
Perhaps we should look as well at aircraft fire fighting regulations. I assumed that as we moved the administration and operation of airports to the private sector we would be looking at the transfer of the fire fighting facilities and capabilities of the airport to the most appropriate municipality, usually the one in which the airport is located. Am I correct in assuming that? If so, do you have any data on the relationship between responses at airports and crashes on airport property or within access of that facility? I know that we will be spending some time considering that issue.
Mr. Jackson: The data is very interesting, senator.
We will be happy to make available to you the new aviation regulations. We will also provide you with some information on flight and duty time.
With respect to airport fire fighting, we have not had regulations up until now because we owned and operated airports and operated fire fighting services. As we devolve airports, we need regulations to establish what the airport operator must provide. We are in the early stages of that process. We do not have government draft regulations which have gone public, but as soon as we have something, we will make that, and the data which goes with that, available to you. That should be within the next month.
The Chairman: We would certainly appreciate that.
I again remind you that some of us are very concerned about the National Aeronautics Act and the Marine Act. Your minister had very warm words to say in this regard in the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. I hope that you will take those words to heart and get on with that.
We are delighted that you were able to be with us this afternoon. We look forward to seeing you again from time to time over the next year or so.
The committee adjourned.
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 7, 1996
The Subcommittee on Transportation Safety of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 12:11 p.m. to study the state of transportation safety and security in Canada.
Senator J. Michael Forrestall (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: I call the meeting to order .We have a quorum. The Subcommittee on Transportation Safety of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications continues its hearings.
For the benefit of the committee members, I will call upon our colleague Senator Bacon, who is chair of the main committee, and ask her if she would be kind enough to give us a brief report on certain activities in which she was involved earlier today.
Senator Bacon: I wish to report that our budget was partly accepted the Internal Economy. The amount of $144,000 was accepted, and Internal Economy will meet in two weeks and discuss the balance of the budget. I am hopeful that we will have the budget for February 1. I believe that we can start our work and that we have the money we need.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Our witness is Kenneth Johnson, Executive Director of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. We welcome him and would invite him to share with us, as frankly as he feels free to so do, some of his views, and then perhaps he will entertain some questions.
Mr. Kenneth A. Johnson, Executive Director, Transportation Safety Board of Canada: I am very pleased to be here and to share some of my views. I understood that the committee wished to hear why the safety board came into being, what it is, what it does generally, and what might be some problems that we have. I have therefore designed the presentation based on that understanding.
I have quite a bit of text to leave with you, so we can probably go through the overheads quite quickly. I do not have any difficulty in taking questions at any time during the course of what I am saying. I would be more than happy to give my views as frankly as I can and to answer anything that I can.
The first matter is the question of why the board was established. Simply, it was to advance transportation safety and to increase and maintain public confidence in the transportation safety system by ensuring that there was in place some sort of organization that was independent, that reported publicly, that was free of conflicts of interest, and that was particularly separated from the regulatory agencies.
It was also very much, I think, the intent of Parliament to ensure that accidents in the four federally regulated modes of transportation would be treated consistently and that Canadians, when they read a report regarding an aviation or marine or pipeline accident, would be able to look at that report and have confidence that each problem was analyzed with the same degree of independence, the same degree of technical skill, and the same degree of objectivity.
How did the board come into being? There was a long series of efforts by successive federal governments. As public opinion grew, the need for the board was seen to grow.
What is really significant and unique to Canada is the focus in our statute on finding safety deficiencies rather than finding the cause of accidents one at a time. The philosophical approach here is to find what is wrong with the system, to look for the systemic problems. While we do tend, for the most part, to investigate accidents one at a time, we try to find the systemic problems rather than the cause of a specific accident. I believe that has put us out in front of most nations. Some nations, such as the United States, do some of this, but we are the only country that focuses primarily on it.
There was recognition that there is an inherent conflict of interest when the department or agency that regulates and operates parts of the system also investigated the failures in it.
The Chairman: I thought I had put forward a good private member's bill.
Mr. Johnson: I was going to touch on that. I remember that one well.
There was also a general recognition of the need for credible, objective analysis of the failures in the system. That grew gradually in the minds of the public as we had increasingly expensive vehicles, a more complex system, and more litigation surrounding everything that we did.
We started to get serious about this in approximately 1972, and General McLearn did a study and recommended independent accident investigation organizations. The Americans took their Aviation Safety Board and expanded its mandate and developed the National Transportation Safety Board in 1974. There was federal government acceptance of the need for arrangements for independent investigation in this country, and consultation started seriously in about 1975.
In 1976, the Aircraft Accident Review Board was established. It was informally constituted by the Minister of Transport. They were paid by him and they reported to him, but they were expected to review the work of the internal air accident investigation organization and be as independent as they could. It was a very large step. It worked quite well, but it was not where the government wanted to end up.
In 1979, Bill C-40 was introduced to establish a commissioner of transportation investigation to look at all modes of transportation and to deal with fatal accidents, and that seemed at that time to be the right place to start. There were then various private members bills. Senator Forrestall referred to one he introduced when he was in the other house.
Public concern started to increase with things like the Pacific Western accident at Cranbrook, the explanation for that and whether people hiding things and destroying information, and so on. There were others. There was one at Frobisher Bay where there was some question about the reliability of navigation signals. More and more, the public was saying, "How can we be sure that the regulator who is also investigating this is telling us everything?" We then had the Dubin Commission of inquiry, which followed largely from Cranbrook. It released the first volume of its report in 1981, and that led to the establishment of the Aviation Safety Board.
A number of other things happened close to that time. There was the big derailment and the evacuation of much of Mississauga and the Grange Commission which urged an independent accident investigation function. There was the oil rig off the East Coast, the Ocean Ranger. The Hickman Inquiry saw the need for independent investigation. Bernard Deschênes did a study on marine casualty investigation and recommended an independent marine accident investigation authority, and farther recommended that it should be attached to the Aviation Safety Board which was about to come into being. He ended up as the first chairman of the Aviation Safety Board and was well committed to the principles of multi-modal accident investigation.
The Aviation Safety Board legislation was introduced and passed in 1983. Thirteen years ago, it was fairly progressive legislation. It took many of the principles that were contained in Bill C-40, followed very closely recommendations made by Justice Dubin, and introduced some notions of privilege for certain kinds of information and a number of things which would encourage people to bring information forward quickly and without fear of what they might say falling into other processes. It did a great deal to separate the accident investigation activities from all the court processes, civil litigation, and the other things that go on.
There was then the Hinton railway accident and the Foisy inquiry and more recommendations for independent accident investigation such as the Nielsen task force. All of this led to the government, in 1986, deciding that the time had come to establish a multi-modal accident investigation authority for Canada. It was generally pleased with the progress that was made by the Aviation Safety Board that had been created by Parliament and set out to do something somewhat similar. Some emphasis was given to the process when economic and regulatory reform was introduced, and many people were saying, "We have all this freedom to move stuff. What will happen to safety?" That certainly gave a push.
As a result primarily of the accident at Gander and the mix of that with an unhappy coming together of a group of people who happened to be on the board, we got into all sorts of disputes about Gander, and public confidence was starting to erode. That encouraged the government and Parliament to move more quickly with the multi-modal transportation safety board, which we now have.
The present board was established in 1990, based on the same principles that had been put in place in the aviation legislation.
For aviation, coming into the new board meant working together with people in other modes of transportation. For the rest of the transportation community, it was a new approach. The pipeline investigations had always been conducted by the National Energy Board. There had been a good relationship there. They understood it, and there was some question as to why it should be changed. Traditionally, marine accident investigation had been a very court-like procedure where the investigations were conducted and the results often were discipline to crews and removal of privileges and all that sort of thing.
The approach of having something that did not deal with blame, that dealt with trying to determine the weaknesses in the system, that tried to make recommendations to fix the system rather than point fingers at the people involved was quite revolutionary. I do not think we realized how revolutionary it was until we tried to put it into practice. We found that, for example, in the marine community, we were doing something different than any other nation. We are absolutely convinced that it is right. We are seeing it make good progress, but it is definitely pioneer work and definitely not easy work.
The basic principles are to ensure that we have that separation of the regulatory activities from the accident investigation functions to avoid conflict of interest, to make findings as to causes and contributing factors, and to identify safety deficiencies and then make recommendations aimed at those safety deficiencies. We have made a big philosophical leap in Canada where we are not aiming at a cause or a probable cause. We are looking at those things around the cause that will help us say what is wrong with or what is weak in the system. The recommendations do not deal with the cause of a specific accident but rather what is systemic. We are convinced that this is the right approach and that it is quite effective. Specifically, the purpose of the board is not to find fault or liability.
The Chairman: That remains the function of the courts.
Mr. Johnson: The courts and the regulatory agencies, yes.
Those who come before us come with a different view of what they should be doing, and I will get into that later. While their statements to us are not entirely protected, they are well protected. Discipline will not come to them from what they say, so they will say different things to us than they would to the regulator who might in the past have investigated the accident and at the same time had the other job to do.
The legislation improved the processes. It is more open than it ever was. There are built-in procedural fairness requirements, which I will get into later. The new approach means that there are fewer reports and fewer investigations. We are looking for the things that have some sign of giving a safety pay-off and getting into those in much more depth.
For example, when we were the air board, we did approximately 700 aviation investigations a year. Now, for the four modes combined, we probably do about 200, but we do them in much more depth, and we believe we are getting closer to those things that are wrong with the system.
The Chairman: This is very vital to understanding the role of the board. Would you explain how you meet when you are in a closed or an open, public venue?
Mr. Johnson: Most things that the board does are open. Most activities of the investigators are open. The only things that are not open are those things that Parliament decided the opening of which would prevent people from being as forthcoming.
When we interview witnesses, the witness statements are protected.
When there is a cockpit voice recorder on an aircraft, that recording is protected. Pilots are not free to turn it off and on. It is there and running as soon as they turn the battery on.
There is some protection given to recordings made of things like communications between air traffic controllers and pilots in the air, as well as train traffic controllers and train engines. Those are all broadcast and received by the crew. They are available at some stage, but there is significantly less protection.
There is protection for medical information. We do have the right to require medical examinations within some limits, and that information is very well protected.
As we do our work, generally you could say that people are pretty much free to look over our shoulders and watch us at work, but we do the work and keep it independent. Some of the analysis we do quite close to our chests. When the report is completed, we send a confidential draft to those with an interest in the findings to try to ensure that the wording is accurate, as well as in the interests of fairness to determine that whatever we may have said about someone or their actions is accurate. They are given an opportunity to make representations. When the board has received and considered those representations, it puts out its final public report.
The objective is set out clearly in the statute, and it is advancing transportation safety in the modes. We are asked to conduct independent investigations and inquiries into transportation occurrences, and we have gone through the making of findings, reporting publicly, identifying safety deficiencies, making recommendations and conducting studies and special investigations on matters related to safety. That gives us a mandate that is pretty clear and that we understand well. We also find others understand the mandate quite well.
It is not the function of the board to assign fault or liability. It is also clear that just because fault or liability might be inferred from what we have to say, we will not to stop saying what we need to say. We do not have a great amount of difficulty in saying what we need to say without inferring fault or liability.
The Chairman: Could you inject a word or two about the process involved in deciding what you will and will not look at?
Mr. Johnson: Yes. That is one of the more challenging parts of the whole exercise. The board has, by statute, a policy on what things it will investigate and what classes. It takes them from larger to smaller things, in general.
The basic criteria for deciding whether we investigate or not include, first, whether it looks like there will be some safety pay-off. Is this a new model of aircraft which seems to have had an aerial break-up and there might be a structural problem? Whatever it might be, has there been a great change in the structure? Is it something that the government used to regulate and has now been moved out to the private sector like NAVCAN? For those elements where it looks like there is something new, there may be some safety pay-off. The degree of public concern that has been expressed is part of what the board takes into account. If we are working on a problem, whether it is derailments or flight into bad weather, we will look at the investigations in that area until we are satisfied that we have an idea of what is behind that occurrence
The Chairman: Is this test applied generally?
Mr. Johnson: This test is applied generally. This test is applied by the investigation staff to every report that comes in.
Each day, all of the reports of the occurrences that come to the board are responded to by the staff. The staff response is sent up to the board. The board reviews it and says, "Yes, that looks like it is in accordance with our policy." Occasionally, the board will suggest that we look at something we had determined to not investigate. The system works very well. The delegation is well controlled. The discretion is intelligently exercised.
We have touched upon our mandate to investigate. We can only do things when there has been an occurrence. That is an important distinction. We do not have a fishing licence. We do not go out and jump on someone's airplane and say, "Let us see if you are doing things right." There must be an accident or an incident or what is defined as the third sort of occurrence, a situation or condition which, if the board believes is left unattended, could lead to an incident or an accident. It is quite a broad mandate, but there must be some sign of something not right before we have the mandate to go out and investigate.
The Chairman: I realize you do not go looking, but should you?
Mr. Johnson: I do not think so.
The Chairman: Could you tell us why?
Mr. Johnson: Yes. The regulatory agencies have the responsibility for establishing the regulatory framework and for managing it on a day-to-day basis. Philosophically, we were put into place to analyze the failures in the system. We were not put in place to audit the work of the regulatory agency on a regular basis. It could be philosophically different. It works well this way.
Those who work in the regulatory agencies are generally competent people who are proud of their work and contrite when something goes wrong. If they found us all over them all the time, it would be more difficult to have a professional relationship when there is a failure. Certainly, if we had that mandate, it would mean a much larger organization than we have.
The Chairman: You would be back into the potential of conflict?
Mr. Johnson: It is possible that we would.
The Chairman: We could pursue this for hours. We want you to be as strong and as good as humanly possible. It is a unique instrument. There is nothing like it anywhere else. I did not want you to hesitate if you thought there was something we might be able to do or to address.
Mr. Johnson: Do not worry about that.
The Chairman: You will let us know.
Mr. Johnson: Yes, I will.
The Chairman: You have lots of time, and we will have you reappear in three months and ask you the same question.
Mr. Johnson: There are some features included in the legislation which are key. Some of those deal with independence. Members are appointed by Governor in Council. The board reports annually to Parliament through the President of the Queen's Privy Council. Therefore, there is not a minister there who might have some other interest.
When we begin an investigation, other federal agencies cannot investigate for the same purpose. We have exclusive jurisdiction when we do investigate.
The role of the Minister of Transport is minimized. At one time, the whole thing was within the minister's jurisdiction. As we moved away from the Aviation Safety Board, we moved quite a long way away, but we did not move all the way. You may recall, senator, that the minister responsible for the Aviation Safety Board was the Minister of Transport. Subsequently, Parliament moved us one step further away.
The minister was concerned, as we were, that the things that we were doing and the things that we learned should not flow through and be used for enforcement purposes. At the same time, if the minister needed to take remedial action, then he should get that information quickly.
Some bits were put into the statute so that the minister would be able to have what was first called a minister's representative on the aviation board. That person had the right to look at witness statements and listen to cockpit voice recordings. They had the right to see anything we did in order to help the minister in those non-enforcement kinds of activities.
That caused some concern in the minds of the people with whom we are dealing. They said, "You tell us this is all straight up and that that fellow will not do anything, but we are not so sure we will tell you everything you might want to know." That was changed somewhat when this statute came into being, and the Minister of Transport was backed out some more.
You are probably aware that in the next while there will be some amendments proposed to the present statute. They will deal further with this sort of thing. I think we are seeing a maturity in the whole system where the regulatory agency has now itself recognized that they are getting from us those things that they need to have in order to take remedial actions. There is no longer a need to have their eyes on every bit of detail that we do. I think the whole thing is maturing in quite a constructive way.
One of the bits in the legislation which I think is extremely enlightened -- and I do not think it exists anywhere else -- is that when the safety accident investigation agency has a need for information and the regulator has the need for the same information for enforcement purposes or whatever, the needs of the TSB are paramount. Parliament has said that it is far more important to find out what is wrong with the system and to get it safe again than it is to worry about catching someone for an infraction. I think that is an extremely important principle. To my knowledge, I do not think any other country has recognized it.
There are provisions which ensure that the process is as open as it can be. The TSB's reports on its findings following an investigation must be made available to the public. When we start an investigation, we must end up with a public report. There is not any way, therefore, that we can embark on something and decide later that we want to leave something unsaid. We are stuck with it. That gives the public quite a bit of confidence.
When the board makes recommendations and issues reports, the ministers in whose area the activity would fall are required to reply to the board's recommendations within 90 days. They must say what they will do, whether they will accept the recommendation in part or in whole or that they reject it. If they do other than accept it, they are required to say why. This is a very strong obligation on ministers, and it is something which keeps the process quite public.
We have what we call an interested persons process which I described earlier. When the board has a draft report prepared, it sends that draft on a confidential basis to those persons whom the board believes have a direct interest in its findings. They are given an opportunity to make representations on the accuracy of the report and on things that we have said about them. This does much to increase the accuracy of the report.
Of the provisions in our statute about which we hear comments from outside Canada, this is probably the one that the industry and the public in other countries say, "We wish we had this more than anything else." The business of giving the board an opportunity to get its facts straight and to have that bit of fairness before things are made public is highly appreciated.
It also has some risk associated with it because there is the possibility that the board, in that confidential process, could be inappropriately influenced. There are some safeguards by which the board is required to maintain a record of all the representations it has received and of what it does with those representations. It writes back to each person who makes representations saying, "This is what you said, this is what we thought about it, and this is what we will do about it." They get a detailed account. Should we ever be accused of inappropriately changing something, there is a record and a clear path there. Someone from the outside could come in and say, "Yes, you were inappropriately influenced," or "No, you were not." I think it is as good a safeguard as we have been able to find.
Concerning observers, there are provisions which are not terribly difficult whereby someone can become an observer rather than a participant. We have a different philosophy from the United States and most other accident investigation authorities. The Americans have a good and effective system which they call a party system. On the investigation team are representatives of an engine manufacturer, an aircraft manufacturer, or whatever. We do not do that. We do it with independent professionals. We believe that the objectivity of the investigation is enhanced. The efficiency is not quite what it is in that other system, but, in Canada, we have decided objectivity is more important. We can go to experts on any point on which we want expert advice.
The Chairman: Does the manufacturer come in as an interested person or an affected person having different rights in law?
Mr. Johnson: For example, if there was engine difficulty with an aircraft or ship, the manufacturer of that engine would be considered a person with a direct interest in the findings of the board. He would receive a confidential draft report and be given the opportunity to make representations. However, they would not participate as a member of the investigation team. They would provide information and drawings. They would provide us with all sorts of things, such as samples of materials that they have used in manufacturing and so forth.
The Chairman: Is there provision for an authority on behalf of a class action, for example, in a plane crash, to conduct its own investigation?
Mr. Johnson: There is no provision for that. If someone wanted to conduct their own investigation, which is not an investigation by a federal agency, I think they are quite free to do so. Certainly when there are civil claims, people do investigative work following our investigations. Sometimes they do investigative work in parallel with our investigations. Often, when we are through with the wreckage, they will obtain the wreckage from the owner after we have returned it. They will look at it to see if they can find something they do not think we found. Once in a while, they do.
The Chairman: That happens, does it?
Mr. Johnson: That does happen. That is one of the things that encourages us to be very thorough. We do not like other people finding further things.
The board has the authority to call public inquiries. The kind of public inquiries that have been called since 1983, when the air board was first introduced, have been very technical in nature. The people who have done the speaking have generally been technical people. They have been used as an element of the investigation as opposed to being something in place of the investigation.
Normally, if there were to be a public inquiry, there would be an accident in which there would be a high degree of public interest. The board would begin its regular investigation two or three months into it. The board would bring forth and expose the factual information gathered by the investigators. They would call in the same witnesses that had been interviewed by the investigators and ask them questions publicly. They would ask those in attendance for any views they might have on how the investigation has been conducted thus far. They would explain how the investigation was to proceed from that point forward and again ask for views on whether they thought that was complete and comprehensive or whether something else should be done. Then that public process would be shut down, and they would go back to work to produce the confidential draft report and finally the public report.
It is a different sort of public inquiry than Justice Moshansky's inquiry or Justice Dubin's inquiry. It is very similar to what is used in the United States. It seems to be quite effective. It is generally quite short and fairly inexpensive.
I talked a little bit about privileged information, probably as much as I need to. Generally speaking, the more private the nature of the information, the stronger the privilege associated with it. There are tests where people can apply to the courts and see whether the public interest in the administration of justice outweighs the privilege that has been applied.
Several times, people conducting litigation have applied to get our witness statements. We have said, "No, we think that is privileged." It then goes to court, and the judge makes the test. In every case so far, the judge has said -- this is not judicial language by any means -- "The safety board found those guys and asked them the questions they wanted to ask them. You go find them and ask them your questions." Thus, there has never been an order to make public a statement that we have obtained.
The only circumstances under which I would imagine a judge might make a different determination is if we have talked to a witness, obtained some information, and that person has stepped out and been run over by a bus or something. There would then be no other source on the planet for that information. However, that has not happened. If it were to happen, I do not think it would upset the whole process very much.
The Chairman: As long as it was not an interprovincial bus.
Mr. Johnson: There are quite a few pieces in the legislation to encourage us or to ensure that we work with other agencies. When we are investigating, other federal agencies cannot investigate for the purpose that we investigate.
I have touched on paramount interest, and I do not think I need to go into that further right now.
In relation to coroners, our jurisdiction overlaps a great deal with that of the coroner. We can require autopsies, and coroners require autopsies. We have been able to deal with the provincial coroners and the territorial coroners in Canada. In some cases, we have signed memoranda of understanding between ourselves and the coroners. In others, we have informal agreements that work very well. There are no problems today.
At the outset, there were serious problems. We could barely walk into the same room together, but we have it all sorted out. We have resolved everything on the basis of letting each other do their job as long as we can do ours. The coroners do tests for us. They do all kinds of things. Our people provide the coroners with all kinds of information they need to do their job. Our relationship is quite good.
The police are a little more problematic. The fact that people know information can be made available to the police puts a chill on what they want to tell us. In the legislative amendments that will be coming along, we will try to deal with that. I think we have a good understanding now of what the solicitor general's department wants. In substance, they are saying the same thing as Transport said as the regulator: that when that chill is there, nothing gets on our records, so we do not get it, and they do not have anything to take. They are really saying, "We do not need that; we will get it by other means." The changes coming along will be quite small but material in helping our investigators do more thorough work and get information more freely.
The Chairman: What about extraterritorial pursuit?
Mr. Johnson: Of witnesses?
The Chairman: Of information.
Mr. Johnson: Yes. Particularly in the marine community, not very many large vessels are registered within Canada. They are in Monrovia or the Bahamas or some place. It takes us longer to get the information, but we can usually get it. If we get to the crew while they are still in Canada, it is not very difficult to obtain their cooperation. If they are away, we do not always get it, but we usually do.
Again, there is that difference between Canada and anywhere else where we are looking at what is the safety problem that needs to be fixed. People in the marine community are used to defending themselves against what they might have done wrong, who will take away their certificate, or who will put them in jail. It takes a lot more effort to get them to be as forthcoming as those who operate entirely within Canada and understand the rules better.
We have done some things about that informally. Our marine investigators started a little organization called the Marine Accident Investigators International Forum. Senior marine investigators from all over the world get together once or twice a year and spend a few days exchanging information, understanding each other's regulations, and spreading around among all of the people within that community what the philosophies are in various places. Our philosophy is better understood by them because of that. Similarly, the International Maritime Organization, which is based in London and headed by Bill O'Neil, is making very good progress in trying to change the approach and trying to bring in some things that will separate accident investigation from other kinds of regulatory activities.
Our investigators have very strong powers, stronger powers than the police in most cases. We can seize things. We can test things to destruction. We can go into people's houses and get stuff. Usually we use a warrant, but if there are exigent circumstances, we can go in even without a warrant.
We only have those powers because the things that we take are to be used to improve safety. They do not take away anyone's rights. They do not put anyone in jail. They do not take away anyone's income or anything like that. The purpose to which the powers are directed is so different that they can be very strong.
I have covered privilege reasonably well.
The board has the authority to make regulations requiring occurrences to be reported to the TSB, which is done all the time.
There is also confidential reporting allowed. We do have in place a system which permits people to provide information to the board on a confidential basis. That is information which is over and above that which is required to be provided to the board. There are always some concerns in the industry that it will be used for snitching or by employees complaining about their masters or be used in labour relations. We do not see very much of that.
We do occasionally get concerns. Perhaps an aircraft maintenance engineer has put a pump on an engine and, the next time the aircraft comes in for servicing, he realizes it was on backwards. It may be the pump that feathers the propeller and it was never used in that period. The engineer may not want to tell anyone that he did it, but he would like to prevent others from making the same mistake. He can write in to the system about it and suggest a lug on one end or an arrow that will help everyone.
We do receive a reasonable amount of information, though not as much as we had first hoped. It is still a good system. We simply cannot do anything with that information that will lead to the identity of the reporter.
The statute lays out quite explicitly the duties of the chairman and chief executive officer. It lays out the duties of the members and the directors. There was some absence of clarity on those matters in the old aviation safety board. Everyone believed it was better to make them more explicit. Having lived with both, we are much better off to make them more explicit.
We have fair bit of discretion within the legislation on how we operate. It has led to developing our own approach, our own sort of corporate personality. We have tried to be very open and cooperative in our approach to our work. We are also very conscious of the requirement to be objective, not to get too close to those people with whom we must work fairly regularly, and to respect very carefully that privileged information which comes to us from time to time.
I explained earlier the policies which try to devote our attention to those investigations which are most likely to lead to some kind of safety pay-off. We do not look for the maximum number of investigations; we look for those that have the pay-off.
In all our activities, we try to operate multi-modally. That has been a fair challenge, because it seemed clear to us that Parliament wanted an agency that would give Canadians the same sort of results of investigations regardless of the mode of transportation. The board was made up of people who had long modal traditions in other areas, very deep and very sound traditions in other areas. The philosophy that had been in the Aviation Safety Board was applied across the four modes. It has taken, and is still taking, a great deal of effort for people to put aside some of the practices and habits that result from hundreds of years of tradition and successful operation in other schemes. It requires constant attention, constant pressing, and a whole lot of patience, because the things that are so well entrenched in people in some of the old ways got there because they were pretty good, too.
It is not easy to measure how we are doing. If we look at resources, we are in the budget range of $20-odd million per year for our whole operation. The Department of Transport is basically concerned with safety but from another perspective; their budget is in the billions. The carriers are putting in billions. Our share of the resources in the whole safety picture is almost too small to be measured. Boeing or someone like that probably puts in more in a day than we do in a whole year. Yet, we have a very important place in the whole thing. We are the only part of it that is the independent objective analyst of the failures in the system. More and more, as time goes on and as our work gets examined, we are becoming accepted as that and respected for it.
No matter how good we are, we will always have a significant amount of controversy. If one of our findings points to a design weakness in an engine or an aircraft or type of ship or whatever that will cost the manufacturer or operator quite a few million dollars, they are likely to put to work a lot of people on a very high priority basis just to bring a little doubt on our findings, if they can. It is work that is challenging to the investigators.
The Chairman: Are you capital-short in terms of equipment and all the tools you need?
Mr. Johnson: Without any question in my mind, we have the best accident investigation laboratory of any nation, certainly of any nation that I have seen. It is certainly better than our colleagues' in the United States. Should the committee want to come and look at our lab, we would be more than happy to show you that part of our work as we go along.
We do not have more money than we need, but we have had enough money to do the job and to do the job well and to stay out on the leading edge. We have done things such as develop a computer-based method of analyzing the information that is in the flight recorders on aircraft. No one else had that. We now license that to the United States, to the Germans, to the French, the Australians, and others. We have been doing leading-edge work. We only charge them a dollar for the license, just to control the process as it is being developed. Every time the investigators get something that they see helps them, it does not take them long to see something that will make it even better. We have a committee on that particular thing made up of the investigators from the various nations that use it. Everyone puts a little bit of money into the pot, and we get together and develop the requirements for further development. It is very good cooperation. In this whole business, there is very good international cooperation.
Senator Bacon: How do we compare the successes of your organization with those in the United States? Is there any way in which we can compare successes or failures, if there are any?
Mr. Johnson: There are bound to be some of both. It is very difficult. We do work closely together. We do some things a little better than they do, and they do some things a little better than we do. We do send investigation work back and forth from time to time. We trade investigators from time to time. They certainly do more investigations of large passenger-carrying aircraft than we do.
Senator Bacon: Is that because of numbers?
Mr. Johnson: Yes, and no doubt as a result of that they have a larger pool of people who are capable of doing a good job on those large investigations. I think we can do as good a job on large investigations, but we have a much smaller pool.
The Chairman: One at a time.
Mr. Johnson: Two if we have to.
The Chairman: Could we handle two?
Mr. Johnson: Oh, yes.
Senator Atkins: Have you any involvement with Flight 800?
Mr. Johnson: That is an interesting example. Yes, we have. We do not have a lot of involvement, but we have discussed with them the things we have done on 747s which have come apart in the air. They have also had discussions with the British because of the accident which happened at Lockerbie.
Last week, we sent six or seven investigators to the United States. They spent a few days with the NTSB investigators discussing findings. A few of our investigators will do some follow-up work for them. We do that between agencies all the time.
Senator Atkins: Why do I get the feeling that they know more than they are telling us?
Senator Bacon: We all have that feeling.
Mr. Johnson: I do not know, senator.
Senator Atkins: The mystery around this has probably aroused more curiosity than almost any air incident ever.
Mr. Johnson: It has aroused a great deal of curiosity and a great deal of worry among the professionals. I think all taxpayers of all countries would be comforted if they knew that the Americans do not do this all by themselves, saying that they know best. They asked for input from British, the French, and us. We try to pool our knowledge in areas in which any of us are having difficulty.
Senator Atkins: And will they share their information?
Mr. Johnson: Absolutely. Also, they use a computer-based system which we developed for analyzing flight recorders. When they talk about it on the evening news, for example, they always acknowledge that they obtained the system from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.
Senator Atkins: Out of that incident arose the question of the black box. Obviously there are different kinds of recorders.
Mr. Johnson: Yes.
Senator Atkins: Does Canada have the most efficient of the recorders on board our aircraft?
Mr. Johnson: On some we have, and on some we have not. Over the past year, our technical staff have prepared a statement of requirements for on-board recorders which would be philosophically equivalent for ships, aircraft, trains, and pipeline operations. Our board has agreed with that. We are now starting consultations with the regulatory agencies in the industry because we believe that there could be much better recording of information on accident vehicles which would help analyse the problems more quickly than we can do today. Some of the recorders are very sophisticated and yield enormous amounts of information. Some that are allowed to be in operation today are still quite primitive.
Senator Atkins: The technology exists.
Mr. Johnson: Yes, it does.
Senator Atkins: Is it something to do with the equipment that it is put on?
Mr. Johnson: In aviation, the newer aircraft tend to have very sophisticated and comprehensive equipment. The old aircraft tend not to. New requirements are generally for new designs. Retrofitting is usually opposed by the industry because it tends to be very expensive to fit equipment into aircraft for which it was not designed.
Senator Atkins: Who is the enforcer in this regard?
Mr. Johnson: The enforcer is Transport Canada. We have to convince the Department of Transport that our need for that sort of information is strong enough to require it to be put on the various vehicles.
Outside of aviation, the tradition has not been to have recorders. They are starting to come into the marine industry. There are some on the railways. In fact, the Canadian railways are ahead of most others in having recorders. They do not have nearly the degree of sophistication of modern air recorders, but it is a beginning. It is part of changing thinking, which does not happen overnight.
Senator Atkins: If you were to assess what is of the greatest value in terms of investigations, would the recorder be at the top of the list?
Mr. Johnson: I am not sure it would be at the top of the list, but a good recorder would be near the top of the list, providing it survives. Sometimes they get cooked in fires and the insides melt.
Senator Atkins: What would be at the top of the list?
Mr. Johnson: Off the top of my head, I cannot tell you what would be at the top of the list. Certainly, well-trained, well-educated, intelligent investigators are extremely important. Flight recorders are extremely important. Good metallurgical analysis is important. Many things are important. I am not sure that we could single out one thing, but we could certainly put flight recorders in that very important group of things.
With regard to how well we are doing, we think that our reputation is developing fairly well.
Our greatest success to this point has been the bringing together of the operators in the four modes and explaining to them the new philosophy, telling the industry about the new regime which is in place, and getting it to work. In the beginning, it was very difficult to get it to work. As time passes, it is becoming more accepted and respected. Others may have been able to do it better than we have, but we believe that the acceptance level is high.
The government of the Netherlands is looking at developing a multi-modal transportation safety board. Representatives have been here two or three times and we have been there once or twice. They have talked to the governments of most of the developed western countries and are going to their Parliament with what they call "the Canadian solution," which is encouraging to us.
The Italian government is looking at establishing a safety board. We have had some of our staff over there dealing with them, and they are very interested in what we do.
As to the recent changes that have taken place in Australia and New Zealand, I do not know how much influence we had on them, but they certainly talk to us a great deal, and the system in New Zealand at least looks a fair bit like ours except for a smaller country. We have had people from Japan, China, almost everywhere. That makes us feel that the Parliament gave us a pretty good mandate.
As far as outside people, we deal with all elements of the transportation community, the unions, legal advisers, the regulators, the Department of Transport, the National Energy Board, the Department of Fisheries which is very involved in what the Coast Guard does, and other federal departments like Environment. If the weather forecast appears to have a place in the things that led up to an accident, our report is brought to the attention the Minister of the Environment who has the same obligation to reply as the Minister of Transport if it were something in his area.
The Chairman: I can be quite vicious on that subject.
Senator Atkins: As we move toward local airport authorities and privatization, does this raise concerns with you regarding the way that transportation will be managed in the future?
In terms of automation, is the safety board satisfied they are getting the kind of efficiency that guarantees total safety?
Mr. Johnson: Let me try to answer those in sequence. Do we worry about privatization of airports, air traffic control systems, the seaway, or CN? Yes, but not simply because it is changing from one form of ownership or one kind of management to another. I do not think there is anything we have seen that shows it is inherently safer to be operated by a government or by a private company.
We do worry about the moving of a very complex organization or very complex kind of operation, one that had a very experienced, competent set of managers in charge, to another organization that probably has a very competent set of managers. Whether everything is transferred and seen as it is transferred, whether anything drops off the table in the shuffle, we do worry about those things, yes. It does not worry me that one person's goal includes making a profit and another's does not. I do not think that is in itself relevant.
Senator Atkins: Unless they are cutting back and making shortcuts.
Mr. Johnson: If they are making shortcuts, that is a problem, but shortcuts can take place in under funded federal agencies as well.
I think the major worry is whether the management of the new organization is familiar enough with it to see any safety problems that might exist. Eventually, I am sure they will be. In the short-term, we are not so sure. There is no question that when we are doing investigations now, we are starting to look more at management issues. At one time we looked only at the metal and the technical matters. As time has gone on, we have expanded our view of what we should examine. This business of finding the underlying problem, the safety deficiency, has brought us out of the traditional kinds of work we have done. There is no doubt that the first time we get a significant air traffic control occurrence to investigate under the operation of the new NAV CANADA, we will look fairly closely at the management issues and the controls, as well as at what the controllers on the scopes were doing.
Yes, we do worry about this big change, not because there is anything very wrong about it, but just because it is a big change, and we do not know whether it has been made without any lapses developing in it or not.
Senator Atkins: Some of the pilots are concerned about it. They are not totally convinced.
Mr. Johnson: We always tend to worry about the things we do not know about, until we know whether it is really good, as good as what we have had, or not so good. In our minds, we are certainly ready to take that question on, and take it on quickly and thoroughly.
With respect to the automation, the other half of your question, yes, we worry about that too. We have, I believe, the largest group of human performance specialists in any organization of our type anywhere. We are looking increasingly into what makes humans do various sorts of thing. What makes the railway engineer, who has been 20 years in the business, one day sit in his engine, go through a signal that says "stop" and onto the main track and bump noses with another train? He did not want to do it.
We find, in the whole transportation industry, people are highly motivated. They like what they do. They like the industry, whether it is rail or marine or air. Children follow their parents into the industry. I was born in a little mining town. My dad said, "The first thing you want to do is get out of here." This is a very different kind of life. Transportation attracts people. They like it and want to do it well. That makes our job a lot easier because usually when something goes wrong, no one tried to get it wrong, and they ask us to help them understand what went wrong. We are very fortunate in the activity we have been put into.
I have talked about the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Maritime Organization. We do a lot of work with both. In the last year or so, we have signed a memorandum of understanding with the International Civil Aviation Organization where we will, if we have resources available, provide investigators to them to be assigned to investigations in less developed countries. Usually we pay the salaries and they pay all their other expenses. We work with them quite regularly in developing the manuals and things they have distributed to all nations that are members. Similarly, we are working closely with the IMO.
I have mentioned we work closely with the investigation agencies of other countries. We spend a fair bit of time working with professional organizations, too. I could make a few comments as to how we think we have done in the relationship generally. It is a little bit of a tricky relationship. We need to know people well enough that they have confidence enough in us to speak to us when something has gone wrong and not so well that anyone will ever suspect that we have been influenced by them. It is something that we balance. We have been in business in aviation the longest, and we have that relationship in place very well.
The railway relationship has come along very well. The Railway Association of Canada fortunately has facilitated that. We go to them and they coordinate everything for us, so the rail industry is quit easy to get hold of.
There are two pipeline associations which have helped us a great deal. Marine is a lot tougher, because we have East and West Coast fishermen, Great Lakes ships, and off-shore ships. Most of the shipping that comes from offshore is registered in other places. It is hard to sit down in a room like this with the marine community and have a discussion with them. We have to catch it bit by bit, and it is taking us longer. It is also the mode that was required to accept the most change when this philosophy came into place.
Senator Atkins: With the cutbacks, say, to the Coast Guard, are they doing their job? There is a sense out there that in many areas -- and with the cutbacks that have been implemented -- the Coast Guard are not doing to the maximum the kind of responsibilities that they must carry out in terms of marking waterways and so on.
When it is cutting back on different organizations, does the safety board have any influence on the government to the point where they might change their mind and reprioritize things that relate to safety?
Mr. Johnson: By being a reactive agency in general, there is little opportunity for us to set their priorities before they make their decisions. After they have taken their decisions and it is in place and operating, if we investigate marine accidents and it appears that buoys have not been moved, things have not been inspected, or whatever, that will be part of our public report. That will be brought to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries, who will be required to respond. That exchange is then public. That is the best way to bring about any changes that might be required.
It has always been part of the philosophy that we should not have the right to direct the changes, but we certainly have an obligation. If we do a good, serious investigation of something and it takes us one year to get the report out but we have thought about it a lot and we say, "This looks like it is wrong," we do not intend to say it once and let it go away if no one pays attention to us.
In the early days, when the board was new, we were a bit tentative. We would look at things and, if people disagreed with us, we were not so confident in our own abilities that we would say too much about it, but we are now to the point where we are pretty confident. If we are pretty sure that we are correct and we say something and the minister has not replied, you can be sure that the board will be heard from again.
Senator Atkins: I hope that is true.
The Chairman: You now have the problem area. Time is running out. I do not know when you will be able to appear again, but, in three or four minutes or less, could you touch upon the question of accident investigation in the Canadian Armed Forces and the military side of it? Is this a question that we must examine? It is not irrelevant by any stretch of the imagination, but is it or is it not a question that we should be addressing in continuing this type of investigation?
I fought long and hard for independence, but the separation of the regulatory board from the administrative body is being perpetuated in the Canadian Armed Forces. It is so small now that you cannot have an accident without an investigator knowing that accident, that victim, that person, or someone in his family who went to university with him. It is too close, as the armed forces get smaller and smaller in numbers. I am not questioning their capacity in any way; I just wonder if it is time to ask this question. Perhaps you might say a word about that. If you chose not to do so, I understand.
Mr. Johnson: We work closely with the military accident investigators. We have derived a number of our staff from the military. I agree, but, technically, I think they do a good job in aviation at least. Philosophically, they are quite enlightened in the way they dealt with those people who had accidents, and they taught those of us in the civilian world some things.
Concerning the question you raise about conflict of interest, the situation in the military today is parallel to what it was in Transport before. It is up to people other than public servants to decide whether national security and that sort of thing is so well served by having it in one place that it should be left there, or whether the conflict of interest is the greater issue right now. I do not think I could give you much advice on that.
The Chairman: That is fine. Do you want to deal briefly with the problems as you see them?
Mr. Johnson: There are very few problems, as far as I am concerned, but let me go to what I have.
We have the problems of being a pioneer -- that is, being the first one in the business and having to teach everyone about the new philosophy and how we are trying to operate. It is not a problem to complain about; it is something to work our way through.
The refinements to the statute that I mentioned will be coming forward soon. Things such as providing information to the police, the amount of involvement of the regulatory agency, the protection of some confidential information and so on are all being tidied up in the amendments. Any of those things that we are aware of that affect the operation of the board and its administrative tidiness will come forward. In addition to that, there will be probably a few amendments that reflect some of the desires of the government to have part-time members where they have reason to appoint them and things like that. We are fortunate in that everything we have seen in the last six years that seems to need adjusting is covered in there.
There is an open question that we have not addressed, namely, interprovincial trucking. We have taken a position within the agency that, unquestionably, that portion of interprovincial trucking is federally regulated and any accidents within that activity are also under the control of the Department of Transport. That conflict of interest exists. However, I do not know whether the government wants to tolerate it and whether it wants to get into the federal-provincial things that go along with that. If it were to come out of there, whether it should come to our agency or to someone else is something that we, as public servants, do not need to be concerned about. As a Canadian, yes, the conflict of interest is there. There is no question about that.
I do not want to sound acquisitive, but the United Kingdom has a health and safety secretariat. Finland and Sweden have accident investigation agencies that have mandates much broader than transportation. That is something that we might want to have a look at some day. Whether it would be appropriate for Canada or not is another question.
That is about it. We do not have an extra penny, but we have enough to do the job.
Senator Adams: We can get into the estimates for the cost. In 1993-94, you spent $27 million. In 1996-97, you went down to $23 million. Is that because of fewer accidents or because you have cut down on your staff?
Mr. Johnson: All sorts of things have been happening. Part of what has been happening is, over the six years we have been in operation, we have become a little more efficient at doing things. We can do more work with fewer people. Our people are better trained. They are more effective than they were.
Part of what has happened is we are not doing some things we used to do. We used to investigate every little aviation accident, and now we do not. We simply say, "It is very sad there was an accident, terribly sad if someone one was killed in that accident. It does not look like there is anything there that will tell us about the transportation system. You will have to depend on the police and the coroner for their report."
In cooperation with the coroner, any time there is a fatal air accident that we do not investigate, the coroner usually says, "Will you come out and give us a day or two of your expertise?" Without doing our own investigation, we can give support, and he can put into his report what he needs. That seems to work quite well.
This does not leave everyone with a warm feeling. On the other hand, I think Canadians realize that we cannot have all of the things we used to have.
Senator Adams: Do you work along with workers compensation boards?
Mr. Johnson: A little bit, yes.
Senator Adams: We have people in construction up in the territories who are doing more and more for less money. Do you have anything to do with construction and that type of thing?
Mr. Johnson: We do not have anything to do with construction unless there is a helicopter or a ship bringing a crew in to a construction site. Where there is a transportation accident, people from workers compensation generally defer to us to do the analysis. Where there is an industrial accident, they do it. Where it is grey, we have been able to work it out.
Senator Atkins: Does the board, before a final reports are filed or made public, contact the people if they feel there is a blatant or obvious deficiency that must be addressed?
Mr. Johnson: Yes. There are a few obligations in there.
Right from the very beginning, the day that we get the report of the occurrence, any time we see something which requires urgent safety action, we have a statutory obligation to make a recommendation to deal with that. Before people get their public report, they will get the draft report which has the findings in it.
Senator Atkins: There is no change between anyone getting a draft report and a final report?
Mr. Johnson: Yes. If someone said the serial number was some sequence of numbers or we had said that and they said no, it was some other, we will change that. If they said, "Well, you looked at this and this is the conclusion you came to, but you have not looked at this other part of it; you missed that. You should take that into account," we will redo it and perhaps come to another conclusion.
If the conclusions are significantly different, we have a second round of the confidential draft. The fellow who looked absolutely happy the first time may not be happy the second time. We do not intend to surprise anyone.
The Chairman: I serve you notice that we have just begun. It has been a very interesting hour and a half. We are most appreciative, Mr. Johnson, for your evidence this morning.
When we have you back again, we may be wanting to look at the causes of accidents. We might want to ask you, from your experience and the experience of the board, what causes accidents. We might look for the major safety problems or ask you your opinion as to what they might be in Canadian transportation in our transportation network. We look forward to seeing you again.
The committee adjourned.