TRAN Committee Report

NDP Supplementary opinion

The New Democrats have long supported strengthening safety measures across all modes of transportation. That is why, in response to the many issues raised about aviation safety, we proposed this subject to the committee for study.

We are pleased the parties gave their unanimous consent to study this priority issue. We support the recommendations in the majority report and will press the Minister of Transport to take action on them to ensure the safety of Canadians.

However, we are submitting this supplementary opinion to make three recommendations overlooked by the majority report.

First, we recommend that an independent public inquiry be held on all aspects of aviation safety. Second, we recommend that budget cuts to the federal aviation safety program be ended. Third, we recommend that the government end the confidentiality of internal process bulletins and policy documents related to aviation safety inspections. Finally, although we are happy with the consensus on the 1:40 ratio for flight attendants, we wish to reiterate the NDP’s traditional position on this matter.

Recommendation 1: We recommend that the federal government hold an independent public inquiry on all aspects of aviation safety.

In our second hearing of witnesses, the Hon. Justice Virgil Moshansky, whose expertise and reputation are well established, recommended that a commission of inquiry be formed to review aviation safety in Canada. According to Mr. Moshansky, Transport Canada’s current approach is so inadequate that the federal government should launch an investigation under the Inquiries Act. He notes in his brief that “Transport Canada has now totally abandoned traditional hands-on regulatory oversight, in-flight inspections and audits across the aviation system (thereby eliminating expensive Inspector personnel).”

Other stakeholders also supported this recommendation, including the Canadian Federal Pilots Association: “We concur with Justice Virgil Moshansky’s recommendation for a commission of inquiry into aviation safety oversight. We agree that it’s long overdue.” Instead of having to carry out inspections on the ground, Transport Canada inspectors need only verify documents. This approach is especially alarming because it violates ICAO requirements.

Recommendation 2: We recommend that the federal government end the budget cuts to the aviation safety program and provide stable funding.

Budget cuts have deprived the aviation safety program of the resources it needs to fulfill its mission. According to Justice Moshansky, “What has happened in the meantime is cost-cutting, which has resulted in inadequate funding of Transport Canada’s oversight regime. There are inspectors now who haven't flown an airplane for a year, or some even longer than that.” That’s why only half of the planned inspections, planned evaluations and program validation inspections have been done.

The NDP asked a question in the House about aviation safety inspections. Minister Garneau answered, and I quote, “Our department conducted 10,000 inspections last year.” Yet a Transport Canada document shows that the total number of planned inspections was around 6,200 and that the number of inspections that were actually done was around 5,500.

The other result of budget cuts is that aviation safety inspections are more and more reactive and less and less preventive. Transport Canada document states that for 2016-2017 the number of inspections in response to accidents was nine times higher than preventive inspections. Successive governments believe that self-regulation is an accident prevention system, but the statistics clearly show otherwise. Moreover, there are so many reactive inspections that they cut into resources for preventive inspections.

Recommendation 3: We recommend that the government end the confidentiality of internal process bulletins and policy documents related to aviation safety inspections and make them available on the Transport Canada website, except in situations where national security is at risk.

Decisions to cancel or amend aviation safety inspection procedures are made through internal process bulletins. These Transport Canada internal documents are often not accessible to parliamentarians or to the public, despite their impact on the quality of the work of aviation safety inspectors. The NDP believes that parliamentarians and the public should be able to see these documents.

Justice Moshansky sounded the alarm by saying, “Transport Canada did not publish those decisions in the Canada Gazette. They did not inform Parliament, MPs, or the public. These decisions were made by internal memo alone. They are now public only because a concerned party released them. I’m tabling with your committee the internal process bulletin 2016-09, in both official languages, where these decisions are documented.”

Reminder: The NDP reiterates its commitment to prioritize passenger safety by re-establishing the 1:40 ratio for flight attendants.

We are pleased that the Liberals and the Conservatives are not closing the door on the 1:50 flight attendant review and that we have found ways to include this subject in the report through expert consultation.

However, of all priorities, passenger safety in an emergency is certainly number one. In the event of an aircraft evacuation, all exits should be supervised by a flight attendant. Yet current regulations allow airlines to allocate one flight attendant for 50 passengers. This ratio is clearly insufficient to ensure passengers’ complete safety in the event of turbulence, cabin decompression, an on-board fire or an emergency evacuation.

Transport Canada’s decision suggests that economic viability takes precedence over passenger safety. Emergency exits left unattended because of a lack of flight attendants present an unnecessary and unacceptable risk to passengers and crew. According to Jordan-Bray Stone, “Many studies by aviation investigation branches and government commissions over the years have cited the fact that passengers simply are not in a position mentally, and they certainly lack training, to properly assess exits in an emergency, and that this lack of situational awareness and ability to act and make life-threatening decisions in a split moment has very real consequences.”