Public Accounts Committee on April 3rd, 2017

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for being here.

I have a follow-up to the crash question. On page 10 of the Auditor General's report, there is this sentence:

Transport Canada had incomplete collision and injury data, and could not demonstrate how research informed safety regulations

This seems to be quite contrary to what happens in the United States, where all their crash dummy testing is very visible, transparent, and available. Apparently, Transport Canada doesn't have this. It is not public, and it is not available for consultation. The report notes:

...[it] did not include complete Canadian data, and...the Department did not obtain other relevant information, such as insurance industry statistics.

Could you comment on this, Mr. Keenan? Is it something that you intend to address? I didn't see in the action plan actions specifically meant to address this, but I would be very happy to hear you bring it forth.

[Michael Keenan]

I can't find the sentence, but I would commend—

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

It's on page 10.

[Michael Keenan]

I would commend the Auditor General for the efficiency of his language, because in one sentence he encapsulated two significant challenges. The first is that Transport Canada is not currently receiving all of the data available on collisions, collision factors, and other factors. I think that's his recommendation 4.44. We are acting on that recommendation with a strategy to work through the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators and seeking a commitment on the part of the motor vehicle administrators in all provinces and territories to go to a higher level in getting that data to the Government of Canada.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Keenan, that is after actual collisions, if I'm not mistaken.

[Michael Keenan]

Yes.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

I'm talking about the testing. When you do your crash testing, that's the other part.

[Michael Keenan]

It's taking me too long to get to the second part. This is why the Auditor General's sentence is so efficient, because the second problem contained in that sentence is that, while we have a research program and we generate research through it, and while we rely on research from researchers in Canada and internationally, including out of the U.S., we have not always been clear and transparent as to the research we're using and how we're using it to inform our regulations.

We have committed in our regulatory process and in our regulatory plans to articulate clearly which pieces of research we're using to inform our proposed regulations. We will include this in the regulatory impact statements that are part of the proposed regulations going into the Canada Gazette.

On one end, we're working to pull in more data from the actual experience of collisions and accidents and problems across the country. On the other end, we're committed to making sure we are being more transparent in the research we're using to inform our proposed regulatory measures.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you very much.

Do I still have time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You have three minutes.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

I want to come back to one of the Auditor General's comments. Let's come back to the United States. The department often waits for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to develop new standards before adapting them to Canada.

I understand that means are different in the United States, especially in terms of numbers, but Canada also has its own unique characteristics, be they related to the climate or the terrain.

Shouldn't Transport Canada be strongly encouraged to be a bit more proactive when it comes to researching, drafting and implementing those regulations?

[Michael Keenan]

Yes. You are right, Transport Canada often waits for the United States to develop regulations to define its rules. That's entirely true.

I would characterize that as part of a regulatory strategy wherein we are seeking to get the highest level of safety practicable, and in the context of North America, pursuing a priority of regulatory alignment facilitates that.

In many cases—and here this the Auditor General is absolutely right—we work with the U.S. in dialogue, and then, once they've settled down where they're going, we will seek an aligned regulation in Canada where it makes sense.

There are times when the opposite happens. When Canada sees a problem and Transport Canada sees a problem, we take action, and even though we're smaller, and I would say that it's a little harder to get the attention of the U.S., there are instances when we've moved first to address a safety issue, and the U.S. has followed and aligned with us. One example is immobilizers. In 2005-06 there was a growing death toll from kids stealing cars, joyriding with them, and in the process of joyriding, driving carelessly and having accidents. The theft of the car for the teenage joyride was connected to a new source of vehicle risk.

About 2007-08, Canada required immobilizers, and we rolled in a regulatory requirement for immobilizers. That did not curtail the professional car thief going after a Mercedes. It did stop the teenagers, and the death rates from joyriding accidents plummeted. It was an improvement in safety on the roads in Canada.

The U.S. didn't have that, and I think they're just now in the process of bringing in immobilizer regulation in the U.S. that matches the Canadian story. I think it's fair to say that there are probably more times when we've followed the U.S. than they've followed us, but we pursue both in the interests of safety.

Excuse me, Chair, am I running out of time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, time is up. Be very quick, then.

[Michael Keenan]

I apologize.

While we do strive for alignment because it reduces the cost of safety, there is also a third class, because there are times when Canada pursues a different regulatory standard. In this regard, I would note the issue of daytime running lights, on which we've come to a different conclusion than the U.S. We think they add safety. There's also the maximum weight for a child in a child restraint system, as we discussed before.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

We'll move to Mr. McColeman, please, for the second round.

You have five minutes.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'll try to be quick, and I would ask you for short answers.

How long have you been the deputy minister?

[Michael Keenan]

I apologize for long answers.

Twelve and a half months.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Twelve and a half months. The period of time we're talking about here is much longer than your tenure in this position.

[Michael Keenan]

Yes.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Okay.

When you arrived as the deputy minister, did you undertake a personal analysis of the organization, its effectiveness, including in meeting performance standards and, in particular, of management in meeting its performance standards? I ask because just like Ms. Shanahan pointed out, this is a shocking, scathing review of this organization. Did you undertake that kind of analysis?

[Michael Keenan]

In fact, the Department of Transport is in the final stages of completing a comprehensive review, which is the department's performance in all lines of business, under the guidance of the Treasury Board.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

How many people work at Transport Canada?

[Michael Keenan]

As of January 1, 2017, 5,034.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

That is 5,034 people who work at Transport Canada.

How many, in particular, would be allocated to the division that we're talking about here in terms of transportation safety?

[Michael Keenan]

I think the whole motor vehicle safety program is about 90 people, Kim? It's about 90.