Transport Committee on Feb. 13th, 2014

[Col Steve Charpentier]

To my knowledge, only operational factors or matters of national security could justify an exception.

Let's use the example of the helicopter crashes in Afghanistan. Our investigators on site may have been more careful in the drafting of their reports if they had good reasons to believe that the information could potentially be misused by our Afghan adversaries. Yet even in that specific case, the investigation reports produced were made public. That being said, the process is fairly long, as a whole year—sometimes even two or three years—may go by before an investigation is completed.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Is that lengthy time frame due to administrative constraints or to a comprehensive investigative process?

[Col Steve Charpentier]

It is more due to the comprehensiveness of the investigative process.

The objective of our investigations is not to establish administrative measures or to impose disciplinary measures, but rather to determine the cause of the accident and to figure out what needs to be done to avoid similar cases going forward.

Often, we carry out in-depth analyses and visit laboratories. For instance, if an engine was the cause of an accident, we would carry out in-depth examinations and question the company who built the engine. That takes a lot of time, and it explains the fact that an investigation can take one, two of even three years.

However, allow me to reassure you. When our investigations reveal causes that, if addressed, would help prevent another accident, we do not wait for the end of the investigation and the publishing of the report to take action. Our main objective is to prevent accidents. That sometimes lengthy time frame does not prevent us from protecting our resources and people.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Whose job is it to decide whether a report should be published or not?

[Col Steve Charpentier]

My job is to conduct investigations and report on their results to the minister's office. I have never had to make such a decision, but I think that, if the situation presented itself, this decision would be made when the investigation's results were reported.

Investigations are carried out independently. They are finalized, and their results are reported. The chain of command does not get involved in the investigation process. The chain of command is informed on the investigation's conclusions after the report has been presented to the minister's office. It would probably be at that point that the chain of command would share its concerns with the minister, who would then make the final decision.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

So the decision would be made directly by the minister.

In cases involving civilian aircraft, how much would the civilian party be involved in such a decision? Would that party even be consulted on the issue?

What would you do if the investigation report was not published, but recommendations or other information had to be communicated to the civilian aviation party?

[Col Steve Charpentier]

We work closely with the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. I met with that organization's representatives about two months ago. We have a memorandum of understanding for training. We do need to have a parallel process, as we are trying to be equivalent, to a certain extent. When it comes to our investigations, we use the formats of the International Civil Aviation Organization. That format is the most commonly used one around the world for investigation reports. That is what the TSB is doing, as well.

We invite TSB representatives to participate in our investigations if they want. In exchange, we have an agreement with them whereby, for the purposes of training, one of our members can be invited to participate in an investigation, even if that investigation is not of a military nature, but is fully civilian. We work together in this manner.

The TSB investigates civilian accidents, and we investigate military accidents. However, when a civilian aircraft and a military aircraft are involved, a whole host of factors come into play. The context of the accident is taken into account—for instance, whether it took place on a military base. In cases where only the civilian side is involved, my counterpart from the Transportation Safety Board and I work together. I assume that, in that type of situation, the Transportation Safety Board carries out the investigation, and military members are invited to participate in it. However, perhaps I should let Jim tell you about that, given the amount of time he has spent with the organization.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Armour, can you tell us more about that?

[Jim Armour, Senior Investigator, Department of National Defence]

I will let you take this one.

[Lieutenant-Colonel Paul Dittmann, Chief Investigator, Department of National Defence]

Okay. I will answer in English, to be more specific.

The Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act identifies that the TSB can enter into agreements with other departments as required, and as a result of that, the TSB and DND have a working agreement that facilitates,

exactly as the colonel just explained,

how we work together in the various situations in which we find a mixture of military conveyance and civilly operated aircraft. In that sense, we have a very clear boundary that's known by both the Transportation Safety Board and DND with regard to who does what in which case, depending upon who needs to exercise the authority to investigate, whether it's Transportation Safety Board or the Minister of National Defence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr. McGuinty, you have seven minutes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to begin by congratulating you, Colonel Charpentier, for this morning's presentation. This may be the most coherent presentation I have heard in a few years.

Thank you very much for your brief. It's very comprehensive and very easy to understand.

As I understand it from your presentation, these amendments are trying to deal with two interfaces that need to be improved. One is the interface between military and civilian roles, and the other is the interface between the AIA and the TSB. Is that right? A number of changes are being made here to improve the way we do what we do under both acts, and there are a number of measures here I wanted to explore with you.

Over the last several years, many Canadians have been concerned because the government, taking a general approach, has moved to concentrate more and more power into the hands of specific departmental ministers. We've seen in a number of different areas how decision-making has been elevated to the office of the minister, including, for example, being able to reverse decisions made by arm's-length statutory bodies.

Can I just explore with you a little bit the new powers that are being vested in the Minister of National Defence here? One is described on page 4 of your brief, regarding this test around on-board recorders, whether it would be made available to a board of inquiry, and whether the public interest and proper administration of the Canadian Forces outweigh the privilege associated with the on-board recorder. There is a new power being vested in the Minister of National Defence.

Do I have that right?

[Col Steve Charpentier]

Yes, that's the case. However—I'm trying to find the right words to explain it.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

You can speak in French if it's easier for you.

[Col Steve Charpentier]

No, that's fine.

Dealing with on-board recorders is like having a tape that is listening to what the crew is saying all the time, so initially when they wanted to kick in that concept in the civilian world, there were a lot of concerns about privacy. They don't want tapes to be listened to that concern the privacy of the crew.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

The charter rights of Canadians.

[Col Steve Charpentier]

Exactly. So that's why it became.... There's a law, an act, that was voted to protect that type of information.

When it comes to the military, that's the same idea, however this part we're talking about is for the military to be able.... It's going to help us also because it's a different business, our business. Let's say we have F-18 guys training together, and they have a close call or something like that. We want to be able to use those tapes for training purposes also, to listen to what a guy has said and so on.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

So the guys in the cockpit whose voices are being recorded, do they agree with this?

[Col Steve Charpentier]

They have no problem with this because most of them right now expect they're going to.... When you join the forces, they expect this type of thing can happen. We can listen to the tape.

I'm going across Canada because part of my role is to promote flight safety and I'm doing the reverse right now. I'm explaining to most of the air crew that they do have some protection, that nobody can listen to those tapes unless it's for an investigation or it's for training purposes because there's a misunderstanding at Canadian Forces that all your tapes are being listened to every day.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'm just struck by the fact that this new power, and perhaps Mr. Weatherston as counsel can explain....Page 5 of your brief says, “It is expected that the Minister of National Defence, consistent with current practice, will permit the AIA's reports be made public,....”

I assume that's another new power being vested in the minister.

[Col Steve Charpentier]

To permit? No, because we already make the report public.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Then why does it say we're expecting the Minister of National Defence to permit or not to permit the AIA's reports to be made public?

[Col Steve Charpentier]

We're trying to say what I was explaining a little earlier, the fact that if he wanted right now he could say we're not going to make it public.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

So this is not a new power being vested in the minister?

[Col Steve Charpentier]

No.