Public Accounts Committee on April 3rd, 2017

[Kim Benjamin]

We just updated the process as of the end of January, so we haven't had the opportunity to fully utilize the new process.

[Michael Keenan]

The implication would be that the next proposed regulatory change that Transport Canada makes on motor vehicle safety, you would be able to see in the regulatory impact statement, published with it in the Canada Gazette, a description of both the data and the research that were used as the basis for this. I'm trying to think of when, but it will be coming soon.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Would an individual like me be able to go to that source and see the data that you've used?

[Michael Keenan]

Yes.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

I did want to ask a question with regard to the Treasury Board Secretariat's overseeing Canada's expenditure review. My understanding is that it is. Can you tell me, what has this review resulted in, in terms of FTEs and financial resources in the motor vehicle safety directorate?

[Michael Keenan]

I think two things. If I heard the first part of your question correctly, I think you're referring to the comprehensive review through Treasury Board. We we have completed that process. We have submitted it to Treasury Board. The minister and I presented to Treasury Board ministers a few weeks ago. The final decision on the result of that review has not yet been taken by Treasury Board, but we're anticipating it relatively soon.

As a result, it's difficult to say what that review will mean for the motor vehicle safety program. However, in the work that we've done, we've ensured that our plans and proposals for motor vehicle safety, which we put forward as part of the modernization of Transport Canada, are consistent with our commitments to deliver on the seven recommendations made by the Auditor General.

There's one point I should clarify, and I believe it was part of your question. Because of the financial challenges that Transport Canada had two years ago, we had an adviser from Treasury Board. That adviser finished his work about six months ago, and gave the department recommendations for strengthening financial management. We have implemented his recommendations. There is no longer a Treasury Board adviser in the mix in the management of Transport Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Keenan.

We'll now move to Mr. Badawey. Welcome to the committee.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like Ms. Block, I'm happy to be here from the Transport Committee to step in to talk about transport. It's good to see all of you folks again as well.

My first question has to do with Mr. McColeman's questioning with respect to performance measures. Looking at the recommendations provided to you by the Auditor General, how is the Transport Department going to come back to this committee, and actually measure the performance based on those recommendations?

[Michael Keenan]

I think the department would be pleased to come back to the committee at whatever time is suitable for the committee. At that time I would propose, and we'll have to do the work, that we would walk through and specifically lay out and describe the milestones of implementation and action in delivering on the committed plan in each of the seven areas where the Auditor General had concerns and recommended action.

We would just walk through the seven and lay out where we are in results relative to the plan that we committed to in our response to the Auditor General.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Through you, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Block asked earlier about the basis on which you make your decisions, and from your answer I took it that it was a triple bottom line approach, with safety being the number one priority. The other priorities, obviously, are the other two parts of the triple bottom line: the environmental and economic priorities.

With that, and with a lot of these challenges identified by the Auditor General, going back, or before the 12 month period—I'm sure it goes months after that if not years—is this an approach that's going to be consistent moving forward, and will it set the stage to measure the performance that you're going to present to this committee?

[Michael Keenan]

The short answers would be, yes and yes. I would add, just to elaborate on this point—because I think it's a really important one—that when you have a number of objectives and one of them is safety, you need to determine where safety sits among those objectives. In the operating priorities of the department and according to the direction of the minister, safety is first. In an organization of 5,000 people, as a senior leader, as the deputy minister of the organization, you'll come across a manager who's working with a company that has a safety problem. An inspector might be trying to decide when to take the next step of action on that company.

I do two things as a deputy minister. First, I trust my inspectors and I don't direct them, because that's inappropriate. We emphasize strongly that a safety inspector's job is safety. Some inspectors will be concerned that if they issue an order it could put a struggling company under. But their job is safety, and they have to worry about safety first. These considerations may be valid, but you have to put safety as number one. When we see employees struggling or thinking about trade or the economy, we remind them that they're in the safety business.

Of the 1,447 employees involved in safety oversight in the department, I would say that the vast majority understand that they're in the safety business and safety is job one. We try to reiterate that wherever possible because it's essential to the mission of Transport Canada. We're trying to be a world-class regulator, and in that context, it's safety first.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Great, thank you.

In response to the recommendation in 4.91, Transport Canada stated:

Under Bill C-62, Safer Vehicles for Canadians Act (introduced into Parliament on June 2015) and again under Bill S-2, Strengthening Motor Vehicle Safety for Canadians Act (introduced into Parliament on May 2016), new authorities have been proposed that would require companies that make or sell vehicles in Canada to acquire, maintain, and report to the Minister records that would facilitate the identification and analysis of safety-related defects. If the proposed authorities are approved, regulations will be developed to implement approved legislation.

I would ask you to provide examples of regulations the department would develop if the proposed authorities are, in fact, approved.

[Michael Keenan]

I do this very gingerly because if you're not careful here, you could find yourself contemptuous of Parliament. Bill S-2 is actually coming back, I think, for the transport committee in the near future, and we cannot presume the final result of Parliament's treatment of Bill S-2.

However, should Parliament give royal assent to Bill S-2 in something close to its current form, as the member indicated, one of the areas under consideration would be the ability to compel companies to provide safety information on products sold in Canada but distributed by these companies in their worldwide activities. This is particularly important, for example, in the evolution of new automated autonomous vehicles deployed for the first time in Canada. We have no safety information on them, but they have it in other countries. We will finally have the ability to pull that in.

As to the regs, they would lay out the exact conditions under which the minister could order this, including the kind of data the minister could order as well as the form. Legislation provides an enabling provision, but it doesn't provide all of the details. I'll give you an example. At Transport Canada, we have 52 acts we administer, and we have 350 sets of regs. We try to put the details in the regs. Otherwise, we would be inundating Parliament with 1,000-page bills left, right, and centre. This would be a poor use of your time and result in a poor regulatory structure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Keenan.

We'll now move back to Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Continuing with the regulations, one of the things that's been identified—and I think it's startling, to say the least—is that regulations don't always go through an inclusive consultation process. One of the things that was noted was that sometimes there is no consultative process—or at least it wasn't as robust as it should have been—with consumer groups, medical associations, the police, and other people you'd want to have input on what they're seeing first-hand with regard to automobile safety, accidents, and subsequent responses.

There seems to be a culture problem when you see something like that happening. Is that the case? What has changed, specifically, to prevent regulations from being made without input from consumer groups, associations, and other first responders?

[Michael Keenan]

I think you've hit on a key issue. I would suggest that in the past, Transport Canada has relied too much on the formal consultation process and the fact that this formal consultation process is for all Canadians. The proposals are published in the Canada Gazette; they're published on our website, and we are explicitly inviting comments from all Canadians. We've probably relied a little too heavily on that mechanism and have not been proactive enough. We put it out there for everybody, and then we welcomed comments from everybody. We have taken comments from those different groups on these safety matters, and we have talked to them, but we haven't structured a proactive outreach to target them, to sit down with them in the early stages of our research, and also, once we go to the more formal stages of the regulatory process, once we've put the regs out, to proactively seek their feedback. I think it's fair. We have committed to do that in response to the Auditor General's concern. And, to give him credit—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

In which way, though? How have you specifically committed to that? I was just curious about it in terms of its structure. Do you now have a biannual review? Are there contacts with the associations? Are there going to be focus groups, where you bring in different associations in the medical/professional fields. Is there a pathway?

[Michael Keenan]

It will be a combination of them. One key change is that we're going to be more consistent in reflecting what we hear from these different groups, capturing that, and communicating it to others to add transparency to the process.

I think at this point, Kim, you may want to jump in and add a few more details on what we're doing to deliver on this commitment.

[Kim Benjamin]

We are making some changes in a few different places. We've always had a forward regulatory plan on our website, but it has been there for regulations that are in the drafting stage. We have committed that by the end of April, we will have a three-year plan on the website that shows the regulations before they get to the formal drafting period. In addition, once we get to the point where we start to send out policy papers—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I want to be clear while I have the last moments of my time. I was talking about how we get in touch with first responders.

I'm not talking about websites and those things. I was looking for specific, concrete action plans on outreach and follow-through dates and so forth. I don't need to hear what's on Transportcanada.ca and those things. I think that type of approach was probably a result of the culture that led to the lack of consultation in the first place, as opposed to soliciting a specific way to get first responders and others, the police, for example, into a formal consultative process, and a pathway for that. It appears that we don't have that plan in place.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Your time is up. Would you respond very quickly to that?

[Kim Benjamin]

It's a multipronged approach, of which the first one was the website. The second is that as we get to the point where we are starting the policy discussions, we will be formally going to each of the key stakeholders who we think would have an interest, anyone who has come to us or anyone on those lists we've been developing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

And you're encouraging that type of feedback from the first responders?

Okay. Good.

[Kim Benjamin]

Yes, as we go to the policy side of things.

[Michael Keenan]

Just to clarify, we'll be proactively reaching out to them in our future regulatory initiatives. Whereas before we waited for them to come to us, now we're going to go to them.