Transport Committee on June 12th, 2014

[Laureen Kinney]

We don't have it in one particular package in the way you're suggesting. There was also the Transportation of Dangerous Goods General Policy Advisory Council working group recommendations.

All of those were integrated into a set of responses. I can go back and see what reports.... Some of those are on the Internet, the working group recommendations for—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I take that as a yes, that you can prepare for this committee a compilation of the evidence and the analysis that was performed by you as officials and given to the minister to allow her to stand up in front of Canadians and announce her new regulation of standards. Is that right? Can you provide that for us?

[Laureen Kinney]

Well, I'd have to go back and look at how it is that we would put that together into what you're talking about and what kind of summary you're looking for.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I need a yes or a no, because we don't have any analysis here.

[Laureen Kinney]

Well there's a whole series of information that doesn't necessarily all fit into one package in the same aspects.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Can we get the analysis and get a compilation of the evidence that was produced for the minister to make that announcement?

[Laureen Kinney]

I can certainly give you a summary of the input and the kind of information that was brought together, but there's a vast array of technical details, for example, the lab reports from the Transportation Safety Board, so I don't want to over-promise what's feasible.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Something was prepared for the minister, right? You didn't walk into the minister's office with boxes and boxes of analyses and research. You gave her a synthesis. You gave her a brief. You fed it up through the system, through the ADM, to the DM, to the minister. If you could produce that for us in a timely fashion, it would be very, very helpful.

May I ask you about the surveillance policy on air transport safety, something called “Staff Instruction SUR-001”? Who's in charge of that?

[Martin Eley]

Me.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Great. Am I correct in assuming that this document is the minister's instruction to inspectors about how to conduct surveillance of the airlines?

[Martin Eley]

Yes. By definition, a staff instruction is how our staff complete the work that we expect of them.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I've read it. If I understand it right, if an inspector were to subject an airline, an airport, or a maintenance organization to inspection practices that are not outlined in this document, they wouldn't be following Transport Canada's surveillance policy. Is that correct?

[Martin Eley]

Yes, other than any staff instruction, that's our intent. We have a responsibility obviously to make sure—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

That inspector could be considered, say, to have gone rogue.

[Martin Eley]

Well, we'd need to look at the specifics before I'd make that sort of statement.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I can't find anywhere in the document any reference to direct operational oversight activities, to traditional inspection, if you will. The staff instruction, from my reading, lists only three types of activities: an assessment, a program validation inspection, PVI, or a process inspection. These are all SMS-type inspections, are they not?

[Martin Eley]

The process inspection is a supplementary piece. The PVI and the assessment are the primary tools in the SMS world.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

The current staff instruction explicitly states that “the traditional approach...is no longer considered applicable for conducting surveillance activities”. Do I have that right?

[Martin Eley]

The difference is in the entry point. We used to look at the detail. Today, we focus on the systems and then look at the detail to the extent necessary to support—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I understand that the policy covers both planned and unplanned surveillance. In the case of unplanned, the policy allows for no notice, but these must be documented by the inspector, as they depart from standard procedure. Is that correct?

[Martin Eley]

Certainly, we responded to the OAG finding that a lot of our inspections were not well documented in the past. We've introduced procedures to make sure that when the work is done, there is clear evidence that it was done and what the results of that inspection were.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

If the inspector conducts a no-notice inspection, that is considered to be a departure from standard practice. Is that correct?

[Martin Eley]

We haven't taken any of the tools out of the tool box. The SUR talks about the way we plan to do things. Any of those tools, other tools, can be used in the circumstances. There's usually management involvement when that's appropriate, so there is some flexibility in there.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Can you then help us understand? Given the requirement for the documentation that's required by the inspector, can you please undertake to provide this committee with a list of all the SMS assessments, the program validation inspections, and the process inspections that Transport Canada has undertaken in the last 12 months? Just take 12 months—not five years, but 12 months—flagging those for which no notice was given to the company in question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Your time has expired, so we'll just have the answer.