Thanks for the question.
Mr. Chair, I'd like to actually take a step back and emphasize that the system that we have is based on an international model of experts, expert states that are global leaders in certification. The system relies on the importance of collaboration between these leaders, information sharing and a strong validation system.
It's crucial that we have a review of what has happened here with the Boeing 737 Max. That's why Canada has been a part of and has considered the multiple reviews that have already taken place.
Let me go through a couple of those reviews. This is not an exhaustive list.
We had, at the beginning, the U.S. Office of Inspector General audit, which sought a factual history of the activities that resulted in the certification of the Boeing 737 Max and produced findings that these four certification authorities will look at and review to see what changes are needed. We have the technical advisory board, a multi-agency review of the proposed MCAS software update and safety assessments that were made in order to determine sufficiency. For that too, we will look at the findings and determine changes.
We have the joint authorities technical review, a multi-authority review of the FAA process and procedures used in the certification of the flight control system of the Max. Canada was a specific partner with that review, as well as countries such as Australia, Brazil, China, the European Union, Indonesia, Japan, Singapore and the UAE. That too brought forward recommendations, and we are looking to see how to adapt and incorporate them into our system.
We have the U.S. blue ribbon panel, a review of FAA procedures for the certification of new aircraft, again, with recommendations and findings we need to consider and incorporate.
There was a recent and reported-on U.S. congressional report that reviewed the accountability and transparency of the certification process. That report uncovered that, as a result of the actions, the validating authorities did not have the full information to determine a validation decision, and it has presented some hard questions on the process that took place between Boeing and the FAA. We also have the NTSB review. Similar to our Transport Safety Board, this is the U.S. transport safety board equivalent. They have examined the safety assessment process and the original design approval of the Boeing MCAS and 737 Max.
We have the Lion Air and Ethiopian Airlines accident reviews. Those are safety investigations. Those, too, will produce findings and recommendations that need to be considered with regard to this aircraft. Of course we have this committee's review as well, which we'll be looking at for any findings or outcomes that will come up.
I'd also like to make you aware that Transport Canada has also launched a review following the accident, which is being led by our departmental audit branch. The objective of this review is to look internally and to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of the Transport Canada civil aviation approach to certifying aeronautical products, including design, implementation and oversight of its aircraft certification design program.
There are a lot of reviews that have taken place. As the Canadian civil aviation authority but also as the certification management team that's made up of four leading aircraft certification states, we are all looking at the outcome of those reports and making sure that the recommendations are considered and implemented where appropriate.
