Thank you, Chair.
I'm not sure I can say this enough, but on protective direction 32, which is the information-sharing one—and maybe it's good that we're having some clarification and discussion around the table here—the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs was also part of the ongoing dialogue that was part of the consultation on this. They were clear at this committee that they didn't need, for purposes of planning, to have advance warning or advance knowledge of what's coming through.
The protective direction provides two things, not only the yearly aggregate information. The second requirement is that significant changes are provided as soon as practicable after the fact or immediately after the fact if a change is occurring. It also sets up, as I understand it, a registry, if you will, of the first responders in communities, who are the ones to be contacted and the information circulated to. It has requirements about how that information is used and not disclosed, etc.
The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs was here this week, and they said they have what they need with respect to protective direction 32, and that advance notice was, and I quote again, “futile” and “unrealistic”.
Additionally—and this too is just to clarify for the record—companies' risk assessments are also auditable as part of their safety management systems by Transport Canada. For those who were at the public accounts committee yesterday and who were reviewing chapter 7 of the Auditor General's report that we looked at back in December, Mr. Chair, the department now has...instead of having 40% of their inspectorate untrained in doing SMS audits, they're down to 4%. The remaining five are a question of the availability of workers to be trained, so they're on track to have that completed, as I understand it, by June of this year.
I'll leave it at that, Chair.