Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 27th, 2012

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

You are advising the committee to study the action plan, the progress made and implementation of the plan. I imagine you would maintain that. Do you have details to suggest to the committee, or something specific it should study, in that connection?

[Michael Ferguson]

Really, what we were suggesting is that today you have the opportunity to hear from the department to get the details of their action plan and to hear from them about their timeframes and how they are going to go about implementing the plan. What we were suggesting in the opening comments was that today is a good opportunity for the committee to get that information from the department about what the action plan is and how they're going to go about implementing it.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you.

I have one final question for Ms. Biguzs or Mr. McDonald.

You said the department was going to do an update on implementation of the action plan and report to the committee on the update in two weeks. Are you talking about this committee, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts? Does the two-week time frame still apply? How do you intend to make that report, with what type of information and documentation?

You also talk about objectives to be achieved in March and April 2013. Do you also intend to report to the committee once we reach the spring 2013 deadline?

[Anita Biguzs]

We shared the plan with you yesterday, and you'll see that the plan is actually dated April. Our intention is to give you an update on some our milestones and target dates—things we've already completed, things we are going to be completing in September, October, and December. We can update you and tell you where we are in achieving the milestones that we set out in that document. We still have dates that are further out, taking us into the early part of the new year, so we would be pleased to update the committee at the end of the fiscal year to give you a sense of where we stand.

We believe that we're at about 75% to 77%. Many of the initiatives we're working on were begun in response to some of the issues that the Auditor General identified in 2008, so in that sense we had a foundation and we weren't starting from scratch. We've been building on these things. I think that's why we feel we're quite well positioned to make some of the necessary changes in our systems, our procedures, our training, and our documentation.

We'll be happy to share another progress report with the committee at the end of the fiscal year or the beginning of the new fiscal year to give you an update on whether we've accomplished what we said we would do.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Very good. Thank you.

Time has expired.

Mr. Kramp, you have the floor.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and welcome to our visitors today.

Mr. Ferguson, you mentioned in your report that Canada compares favourably with many other countries in its aviation safety record. Could you give us a perspective on what you have for comparables and how you arrived at that deduction?

[Michael Ferguson]

I'll ask Ms. Talbot to respond to that.

[Lucie Talbot]

Mr. Chair, in our chapter, at point 5.1, it says:

Statistics from the International Air Transport Association show that North America has one of the safest aviation industries in the world.

As exhibit 5.1 says, the number of accidents in 2009 and 2010 represents the lowest accident rate in the last 10 years.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to pose a similar question to our officials from Transport.

Obviously it's a competitive world out there, with global demands and responsibilities, and it's imperative to have a safety record that's up to par. A good record is one of the marketing tools for Canada and our carriers, and we'd like to exceed the expectations and demands. I'd like your perspective on how we compare with global carriers around the world. Are we near the top? Are we at the bottom? Are we somewhere in the middle? Can you give us a broad perspective on that?

[Anita Biguzs]

Canada is very highly regarded in respect of the safety of our systems. The move to safety management systems, which the International Civil Aviation Organization is promoting globally, is built on a lot of the work that Canada initiated. We're trying to change the culture to make industry more proactive in identifying risks before incidents happen. Globally speaking, Canada is seen very positively, but I'll turn to my colleagues and let them speak to this point.

[Gerard McDonald]

Unfortunately, a country-by-country comparison is not something we have available to us. IATA amalgamated all of North America in those safety statistics. However, our accident rates have decreased by 25% over the past 10 years or so, and I would be quite confident in saying that Canada is among the world's top countries in aviation safety.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you.

I have another question, but before I get to it, let me take this opportunity to commend Transport Canada. That's rare from this committee, frankly, because we generally deal with problems and situations, and it's unusual for a department to be absolutely proactive in dealing with a problem, not only during an audit but before, and having a handle on the whole situation. Quite frankly, it gives me, as a member of this committee, a bit more confidence that we're going to see an action plan that will have deliverables that will be recognized, and in a timely manner, so I thank you for your work on the file. It is reassuring not only to this committee but to the travelling public.

I'll come back to the Auditor General. You've obviously done a pretty intensive SWOT analysis on this. It's great if we can build on the strengths and then make recommendations for our weaknesses.

If you were to pick out a couple of strengths that we can build upon—whether the process that Transport is undergoing now or other things—what are we doing correctly that we can build upon?

If there is a major, glaring weakness, what should we be addressing as an immediate concern?

[Michael Ferguson]

In general, I would characterize the audit—and remember that this is at the point in time that we did the audit and reported on it, and things have happened since— by noting that the department had put in place a system that was consistent with international standards, and that was a good thing. At the time of the audit they had put in place such things as some manuals and procedures that seemed to be complete, so at that general framework level, we found that things were in pretty good shape.

We found issues in the implementation of the framework: the training wasn't complete, the documentation wasn't always consistent, the management oversight wasn't always there. Really, it was more a matter that overall we found the framework was all right, but that there were problems in many areas of the actual implementation.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you.

Now we go on to Monsieur Giguère.

You have the floor, sir.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Auditor General's current report said that Transport Canada was not adequately managing the risks associated with oversight of its program based on self-regulation by the companies. That comment had been made before, in May 2008.

This makes twice that you have been told the same thing about risk assessment. What is the value of the self-regulation program if there is no compliance audit?

[Anita Biguzs]

Mr. Chair, I can assure the committee that Transport Canada provides oversight and does oversight over the industry. The industry is not self-regulated; Transport Canada is the regulatory authority.

Some of the changes we made in moving to safety management systems were basically to make sure that we had a more proactive, robust industry that put in place systems that would identify risks before they became incidents. Our role is one of assessing whether those systems meet our Canadian regulations.

As well, we not only assess the systems of the operators; we also undertake inspections. We do what we call “program validation inspections”, which are broad and comprehensive inspections in which we have a multidisciplinary team of inspectors. We also do process inspections and we do sampling, so we still do regulate.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

The problem is that the same Auditor General's report says that the number of inspectors and engineers the department needs in order to carry out its program has not been identified. It also says that only 67% of inspections are actually done in the general plan, and that of that percentage, only 35% of them follow the new methodology.

Will Transport Canada have the necessary resources to remedy this situation in the climate of budget cuts? Keep in mind that the human resources plan is already insufficient and that the department has not responded to the recommendations regarding human resources shortfalls that the Auditor General had already made in the 2008 report?

[Anita Biguzs]

Mr. Chair, in response to the question, what we have put in place in Transport Canada is a risk-based process. In terms of undertaking surveillance, it's a recommendation of the Auditor General's report that we should ensure that we're focusing resources in the areas in the highest risk.

As part of that process, we have established a risk-based surveillance process that is using risk indicators and looking at risk exposure to plan surveillance. We are developing five-year plans. All companies will be inspected regularly. Higher-risk companies will be inspected more frequently than lower-risk companies. This is consistent with a risk-based process and in fact responds to what the Auditor General had recommended.

I don't know whether you want to add to that, Gerard.

[Gerard McDonald]

No. I think you hit all the major points.

It's important to note that what the Auditor General pointed out was that we weren't appropriately overseeing our plans and making sure that we followed through on them. Since that observation, we have implemented more rigorous planning and oversight of our inspection procedures and will ensure that we stick to them.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Yes, but the Auditor General had already said that you had never clearly stated how many inspectors you needed. He pointed that out in 2008 and in 2012. In your report for 2013, it is still not stated. His 2008 report referred to 890 inspectors. We know that is not enough inspectors. You say in your report for 2013 that you have 799 inspectors. Although you have lost 100 inspectors, you say you can do all the inspections. And yet with 100 more inspectors, you were completing only 67% of your mandate, and of that 67%, only 35% of inspections complied with your general plans in this area. There is a human resources problem.

[Anita Biguzs]

Let me open, Mr. Chair, by saying that we haven't reduced the number of front-line inspectors. In fact, we have more than 880 inspectors. We've made sure, despite having to look at some administrative—

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Excuse me, Ms. Biguzs, but the figures I gave come from your own documents. The 799 figure is at page 39 of your report, and the 890 figure is cited at point 3.38 of the 2008 report. I am relying on the information you have provided to us. These are not figures I am making up. You have lost 100 inspectors.

[Gerard McDonald]

I'm sorry; I can't locate the number you have quoted in the report, but what I suspect you're doing is using two different numbers: one is the number of inspector positions we have, and the other number is the actual number of inspectors on staff.

We still have the same number of positions, but as with any organization that large, there is a regular turnover of employees—people retiring, people moving on to other jobs, and what have you. The total number of positions is never fully filled, because as soon as you fill one, someone else may retire or move on.

Our occupancy rate is somewhere in the high 80% range right now, and we're doing everything we can to bring us to full staffing, but the number of positions at Transport Canada has not changed. We continue to have 881 inspectors in our A-base.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you. Time has expired.

We go over to Mr. Shipley.

You have the floor, sir.