Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 27th, 2012

[Martin Eley]

I'd like to answer that in two steps. For the first part of the commentary, the system we've put in place gives us a risk profile across the country. It's developed against standard criteria. We have the ability to look at the industry across the country. It may not be every operator, but if it's a particular sector or region of the country—

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

But what if it were to change?

[Martin Eley]

We would have the ability to see that trend, which we didn't have in the past. It's important we have that ability.

The second thing is that we deal with the highest risks first. If we have a challenge, then the resources get directed at that highest risk. There is a limit to this, but I don't believe the risk would change simultaneously in every sector in every part of the country. I don't think the industry thinks that way. In the responsible part of the industry, which is the broad part, they respond to those things and they put good measures in place, so I would be surprised to see the whole industry go into high risk at the same time.

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

What I'm asking you is—

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

No, I'm sorry, the time is way over. It has expired.

We'll go over to Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you.

A couple of colleagues talked about risk assessment in terms of downturn. Can you talk to us quickly about what has changed or not changed since the downturn in the 1990s? How has the safety management system improved since the last downturn in the 1990s to now, in terms of the whole of aviation?

Second, I want to go back to a comment made earlier regarding the safety management system. I think it was left that the carriers were involved. When you have a situation in which the carriers are involved in monitoring, does that mean that we basically stay away from them? In some cases in business, we actually try to be proactive so that a potential problem doesn't become a problem by having those initiatives in place.

Could you address those two questions for me, please?

[Anita Biguzs]

In response to your last question, Mr. Chairman, I would say that we have various measures and various ways in which we come into contact with the industry. I think we have described the various inspection processes that we are responsible for. We undertake assessments. We undertake program validation inspections. We do sampling. We do process inspections.

It also means, in keeping a risk profile up to date, that you have to establish some sort of a relationship. You have to have some knowledge of the carriers you're working with. That basically means that inspectors do have to have visits and know the sector that they're dealing with. There are different ranges in the contact we have with and the knowledge we have of various carriers, which is very important in terms of being able to contribute to our risk profiling of companies. I think that certainly all of those elements are there and are part of how we manage the system.

In terms of the evolution of the system since the 1990s, which was your first question, I think that the safety track record speaks very much to the extent to which the system is very safe. Also, the safety management systems is a very proactive systems-based approach that isn't just focused on an inspector going in and finding a problem but rather on putting the onus on the industry.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Mr. Dreeshen, do you want to use some of that time?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much.

I wanted to go back to one other point. The translation from Madame Blanchette-Lamothe came through my ear as security issues, but we are talking about safety issues because we're going to paragraph 5.27. I just wanted to make sure we had that straight. I didn't want someone listening to it in English thinking that we were talking about security in that particular case.

I'd like to go to the presentation that you gave earlier, Madam Biguzs. You were talking about the reviewing and updating of surveillance procedure documentation and you were talking about focus testing. I'm just wondering if you could describe what is involved in focus testing. I'm a former math teacher, so I'm looking at the sampling processes and whether or not that had anything to do with that. Could you tie that in during the short few moments that I have?

Thank you.

[Anita Biguzs]

Mr. Chair, if I understood the question correctly, the focus testing I was referring to was making sure that we validate the guidance material and the tools that we're developing with our inspectors.

We have to ensure that the guidance material we're providing to them on how they perform their inspection, the kind of reporting that they have to do, and the worksheets and the data sheets that they have to generate allows them to understand the kind of information that they have to report. The guidance document has to be clear. It has to respond to any questions that they may have. It ensures that we have standardization and consistency across the system.

Basically we're validating everything we do in our guidance documents and in our standards. We're making sure that we bring together working groups of inspectors from the regions as our experts are developing these materials and documents to make sure that those materials respond to the needs of our inspectors, that our inspectors understand what's being asked of them, and that they are reporting consistently. In that way we ensure we have a national system and we ensure consistency from one region to the other.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

If I may, we're in the dying moments, colleagues.

First off, we have timeframe commitments. There was a commitment made for an update on the action plan in two weeks, which would be mid-December. A further update on that, as a result of those actions, would be in the new year after the March 2013 deadlines. I would assume it would be not long after that. The third one was the update on the HR plan and the number of inspectors required.

A timeline is what I'm seeking from you. Do you have a timeline for me now, Ms. Biguzs?

[Gerard McDonald]

We could commit to June 2013 to have that plan available for you. We have to use the data from this year's surveillance plan to be able to work that in—

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

That's fine. We hear the answer.

The committee will respond in their report as to whether they find that acceptable or not. I appreciate that. That's what I was seeking from you, and I think that takes care of Mr. Byrne's question.

Second, I want to emphasize again—and I think there was adequate discussion here—that this is something the committee historically takes very seriously. If the message hasn't gone out to all DMs and ADMs, they are going to find themselves in trouble someday.

When previous audits have found things lacking, and then we find in an updated audit that the matter still hasn't been dealt with, that's when we really start to get red-hot. This matter of the number of inspectors and engineers falls under that category.

I think it was adequately dealt with here, but I would point out that when those kinds of things happen, those are red alerts. They are red flags to this committee. When it comes to inspections, given that we are talking about the health and safety of Canadians, I can't think of anything more important. Hopefully we won't see a further audit after this one that makes any reference at all to anything in this audit not done. We had one in the last one; let's get none in the next one, please.

The last thing, colleagues, is we are good to go for one hour on the special examinations of the crown corporations. There were two at an hour each, but we could only get confirmation on one. I would suggest that we go ahead with the one hearing, and then the balance of that time we will use for report writing. Is that agreed from the committee? Very good.

With that, colleagues, we will wrap up.

First of all, thank you all very much for your attendance. I know you had a great time here today. We look forward to seeing you all again.

Mr. Ferguson, thank you, sir, and your office, again, for all your good work.

This committee meeting stands adjourned.