Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 27th, 2012

[Martin Eley]

If they're looking at the aircraft, it would be different. If we're talking about pilot flight training, for example, then obviously there's less difference. It depends on the area as to exactly what the inspection is focused on and what expertise is needed, and we continue to need expertise. Even though we have a systems-based approach, we still need strong technical competence behind that to make sure we can get into the detail when that's necessary.

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

Thank you very much.

Chair, in consideration of the opportunity for my other colleagues, I'll stop at that.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Good. We appreciate that very much. Thank you.

We'll go over to Madame Blanchette-Lamothe. You have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ferguson or Ms. Talbot, at point 5.27 of the report, we see that there is a long time between when a safety issue might be identified and when it might be addressed. In some cases it takes up to 10 years.

What kinds of issues are we talking about?

[Michael Ferguson]

We have indicated in paragraph 5.28, Mr. Chair, a number of those different issues. They are stated there. There are things like the state of runways in 1999, pilot fatigue in 2001, and so on. They are itemized there in paragraph 28.

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

Thank you.

So it is a range of issues. Nonetheless, in your words, we are talking about security issues that may take up to 10 years to be addressed, from the time they are identified. When they are identified, they may have existed for several years already. It would be reasonable for people to be concerned when they see safety issues taking several years to be resolved.

I would like to know whether Ms. Biguzs or Mr. McDonald have taken this finding seriously.

Now, with this new plan you have implemented, how many years will it take before you tackle safety issues seriously?

[Anita Biguzs]

Mr. Chair, it's very rare that it's taken 10 years. Some of the issues we have to deal with are very complex and are not easily resolved. These issues require careful analysis and consultations with industry. In fact, we've been working very efficiently to try to improve the processes, reduce the times, and make sure we're focusing on the right priorities in the higher-risk areas.

I'll turn it over to Mr. McDonald to elaborate a little bit more on some of the examples.

[Gerard McDonald]

I think one of the challenges is that most of the issues the Auditor General has cited are recommendations that come out of the Transportation Safety Board, which, following aviation incidents or transportation incidents, makes recommendations to the Minister of Transport on how to improve safety in the systems. One of the things we have to do when we receive those recommendations, if we're deciding we're going to regulate, is to justify how whatever costs will be added to the system will offset the benefits—

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

If you don't mind, I will interrupt you. I'm sorry about that.

My question relates to the security issues identified in the Auditor General's report that take time to resolve. I do not want to hear that it is rare for that to happen. Even if it happens only once, that is once too often. Nor do I want to hear that it is complex. That is not what I want to hear from you.

I want to know whether you take this seriously and whether you have tried to adopt new ways of dealing with it in your new action plan.

Yes, it is complex; I understand. It may be rare, but once is once too often.

Are you taking this seriously? Have you paid attention to it in your new plan?

[Gerard McDonald]

Yes, Mr. Chair. We take the whole Auditor General's report very seriously, and we take any safety recommendation very seriously. We have implemented processes to make sure that if there are serious safety issues, we have a fast-track process to deal with them.

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

Thank you for your concise answer, Mr. McDonald. We will await the results of the implementation of the plan very eagerly and impatiently.

I have one last question, which relates to the number of inspectors. Ms. Biguzs, you said earlier that your objective is to have about 880 inspectors to meet the requirements. However, you have not managed to fill those 880 positions. Probably you are trying to do that; I do not want to question that. But what you are doing to fill those positions is plainly not sufficient.

Do you have any new strategies or new approaches that you want to implement? You acknowledge that this is the number of inspectors needed to meet the needs. Over the years, we see that in spite of all the efforts you make to fill those positions, you have not succeeded. Do you have anything new to propose, to fill those positions?

[Anita Biguzs]

It's clearly a very important area. We're very concerned as well with making sure we are filling the vacancies. We're actively engaged in determining whether there are additional recruitment efforts that we have to make and in reaching out to the industry. We need to see what additional measures we may be able to introduce to make sure we are filling those vacancies.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Sorry, time has expired.

In light of the time, and in an effort to be fair, if people would allow me, I'll go to the third party to give Mr. Byrne an opportunity.

Mr. Byrne, you have the floor.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Regarding the criteria used in risk assessment to provide a profile of a particular company and whether or not it would meet the criteria for increased surveillance, the Auditor General points out that financial health is indeed an indicator, but he also points out that it's not clear what type of financial information should be used to assess the risk of a company being in financial difficulty.

Could you confirm to the committee that the financial health or financial well-being of the company is indeed a criterion used in risk assessment? I'll give that to the associate deputy minister.

[Anita Biguzs]

In our surveillance plan, we are trying to provide clarity to our inspectors on the information needed to support our risk-profiling of companies. We are looking at things like labour difficulties, management practices, contracting, turnover, and key personnel. We have identified a series of standard questions for inspectors to follow to assist them in determining whether there are any issues that fall into those categories. We're trying to refine the tools and make sure everything is as clear and consistent as possible for inspectors.

Mr. Eley, do you want to add to that?

[Martin Eley]

Yes, thank you.

I'd like to confirm that during the pilot phase of our risk-profiling tool, we had “financial well-being” as one of the factors. We quickly realized that it wasn't something that our inspectors, generally speaking, were qualified to assess, so it is not present. There are a lot of other indicators about the health of the company, but the financial aspect has been removed.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

It's now been removed?

[Martin Eley]

Yes. We look at other factors in the company's health, but we're no longer asking inspectors to assess financial well-being, which is something they're not trained to do.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

It was previously deemed to be an element that provided a risk assessment tool, and you dropped it because your current inspectors don't have those skills. Is it being addressed in the human resources plan, and is there any intention to re-incorporate it into the assessment of risk for a particular company?

[Martin Eley]

I should clarify. The inspectors' inability to understand this material was one aspect. The other aspect was that this information is not necessarily available for all companies. If they're not publicly traded, it's not public information, so we could not use it consistently. In other words, it wasn't just the ability of inspectors to deal with it; it was also that the information wasn't readily available from all operators.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

But in your opinion, can it be a determinant of overall risk assessment?

[Martin Eley]

That was our view when we started the pilot. We've come to the conclusion that there are a lot of other indicators we can assess more directly to get us what we need without going back to that.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

If it applies to individual companies, it must also apply to the industry as a whole, to the sector. You would shift your priority from one company to the next if you found that there was a greater risk incurred as a result of poor financial performance. Given that we now don't do that anymore, let me ask a specific question about the macro look of the industry, of the sector.

If the civil aviation industry is under pressure because of the economic downturn, would it be your assertion that this overall negative economic pressure could affect the risk not just to a particular company, but to the whole civil aviation sector as well, with the tide raising or lowering all boats, as it were?

[Martin Eley]

That's a reality we have to look at.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

But do you have the capacity? Do you have the capacity to increase the number of inspectors required? If it's not just one individual company, and the entire industry is under duress, then all companies' risk factors will be increased. Can you increase the number of inspections and inspectors to be able to assess that globally increasing risk?