Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 27th, 2012

[Anita Biguzs]

Yes, Mr. Chair. We actually are now at 99.2%. We have a few individuals who have been away on leave, but we have effectively completed all of the training on surveillance procedures for our inspectors.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

Can you explain how often companies are inspected?

[Anita Biguzs]

Under our action plan, we are moving to a five-year surveillance plan, which ensures we will be inspecting every company over that five-year timeframe. Higher-risk companies will of course be inspected more frequently. I was speaking earlier of some of the criteria we look at in terms of risk profiling, but the intention under our five-year surveillance plan is that every company will be inspected.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Okay, thank you.

In Transport Canada's response to recommendation 5.29, the department indicated that it will have identified ways to accelerate follow-up on significant safety issues raised by stakeholders.

Can you tell us what that process will look like, and what the current status is?

[Anita Biguzs]

We have been making a lot of effort to streamline our process, working with stakeholders in the industry to make sure we can respond in a very timely way to incidents as they emerge. Under the regulations, we have an advisory committee process that engages stakeholders. We're working diligently to make sure it is as efficient as possible. In fact, we have revisions to the system that we're presenting this December to that committee. We hope to move forward very quickly so we can respond in a timely way to issues as they may emerge.

We've already had a number of examples over the last year or two where, in response to incidents that arose, we were able to move forward very rapidly with regulatory measures to address issues.

Maybe I'll turn to Mr. McDonald to add any further information on that.

[Gerard McDonald]

I think that's pretty well covered. The idea of pulling the right people together at the right time on the right issue is really the mantra we're using in trying to adjust our consultative process and make sure that when there are critical safety issues, we respond in as timely a fashion as possible.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

Finally, traffic is poised to increase dramatically over the next 10 to 15 years. I just want to ask if Transport Canada is ready to take on that extra work.

[Anita Biguzs]

Mr. Chair, with all of the work we've been doing on the implementation of safety management systems in working with the industry and putting more onus on it to have proactive, systems-based processes in place, and with the changes we are bringing about in the department in the delivery of our programming for improving the tools and making sure our inspectors have clarity, standardized products, and information they understand about what they have to do, certainly we feel we're well positioned to address the increases in traffic that are forecast over the future.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Very good. Thank you.

Colleagues, we have a little over 20 minutes remaining in the meeting. Our custom is that when we have time remaining, the committee has the option of adjourning, doing committee business, or continuing the questions for another couple of rounds. We would be able to get in another three or four questions. I am in your hands.

I've had some indication from the government members that they're flexible in terms of those options, so I am seeking some input from the two opposition lead representatives, starting with the official opposition, Monsieur Ravignat.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I think things are going well. Why not continue with our questions? I think we're getting to some interesting testimony.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you.

Mr. Byrne, would you comment?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to continue as well. Also, could you follow up at the end to seek an answer to your question about timing on the—

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Yes, I'm hoping to have a response to that also.

All right, if there is agreement, do the government members wish to participate in the rotation?

They do; very good, okay. Then we'll begin with the government. Who would like the floor?

Mr. Kramp, you have the floor.

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

Well, thank you, Chair.

Maybe we could have just an update. You said in your report that in 2011 the fewest accidents in modern aviation history happened in Canada. We're obviously delighted and pleased that is the result. How are we doing in 2012? We're coming close to the end of the year. Where are we today, relatively speaking?

[Martin Eley]

The statistics are not showing any different trend this year. The accident rate is low. Even a couple of accidents late in the year can make a difference to that number, but at the moment we're not seeing any significant change this year compared with last year.

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

I understand that. All we need is one major accident and we have a dramatic difference.

I've been on government aircraft, as have many people. We ride that old Airbus, antiquated beast that it is, and of course the Challengers are going to be phased out.

On helicopters, who does the validation inspection on those? Is that handled internally by DND, or is that subject to the authority of Transport Canada?

[Martin Eley]

The aircraft you're talking about are operated by DND—

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

Yes.

[Martin Eley]

—so they don't operate within the civil system. I know when they operate civil aircraft, they follow many of the same standards, even though we don't require them to. Some of the support for that is actually provided to our own ASD in terms of some of the work they do on those aircraft.

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

Thank you very much.

You say we have enough inspectors, but I'm not only concerned with quantity, I'm concerned with quality. For the actual training mechanisms, who trains our inspectors, and how do we honestly know? Are there legal parameters or particular designations that give them qualifying rights, and are there particular grades as to what they can inspect and what they can't inspect?

[Martin Eley]

There are really two primary sources for the mandatory training in terms of ministerial delegated authority for the Minister of Transport.

We have policy documents that specify exactly what training the inspectors need to do their work, so that's a requirement for the delegation. In some cases, training may be specified in the contract of employment. Again it's mandatory, but from a different source.

Within civil aviation we have directives in terms of the surveillance training, for example, the inspectors need to have. There's also an ongoing need, not necessarily mandatory, to make sure people continue to be technically competent in their technical field as well as in their inspection field.

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

Thank you.

In order to assure the public that the qualifications.... The training is obviously intense. I can recall that when I was a pilot, our simple inspection was the walk-around. Those days are long gone. When our inspectors now go in.... I know it would take hours for you to give an exact detail of all of their responsibilities, but can you give us a quick summation of the main key points they would focus on?

[Martin Eley]

It depends on the level we're doing. If we're doing an assessment, we're going in at a high level. Program validation inspection is a part of the overall program and process inspection is in detail, but in each of those levels, we always have the ability to go and sample. Whereas we might have looked at a whole bunch of aircraft at a detailed level in the past, that would now be a sampling to validate what we'd found within the systems. Without sampling, a quality assurance approach doesn't work. There is still a need to go and kick the tires occasionally, if you like to put it at that basic a level, to verify what we're finding with the system, so it's a combination of those things. It's not exclusively at a paperwork level.

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

Does the same inspector do, say, a Beechcraft and an Airbus A300, or are there different inspectors who deal with the different levels of demands?