Review of the National Enforcement Program

The draft NEP Governance Structure document (which outlines the NEP current governance structure, as well as roles and responsibilities for strategic, operational, and tactical enforcement governance) has not been finalized or implemented.

In addition, although the NEP is a national program, an overarching Program Business Committee led by the DG, NEP, Chief Enforcement Officer (CEO), is not included in this document and has not been implemented. Rather, a director level committee (National Enforcement Management Committee), comprised of NEP HQ and REU management, is responsible for discussing issues and advising the DG, NEP, CEO, who is a non-participating ad hoc member. Concerns have been raised regarding the functionality of this committee and its effectiveness in managing issues.

1. Finalize and implement the NEP Governance Structure that will support NEP’s governance, oversight capabilities, and operations. This should include implementing a Program Business Committee, led by the DG, NEP, CEO, with members from NEP HQ and REU management.

The DG of NEP, CEO position is responsible for the development and implementation of the NEP and is provided with functional enforcement authority. In this role, the NEP establishes standards and mandatory functional guidance on departmental enforcement activities that require the NEP REUs to carry out multimodal investigations for non-compliance cases that are assessed as serious.

The Departmental Enforcement Standards (DeskBook) is an important tool to guide and direct all employees involved in enforcement. It provides over-arching departmentally approved functional direction to support officers in inspection and investigation work. However, NEP functional authority is not always observed, as some modes / programs continue to carry out their own investigations for specific areas (e.g., Civil Aviation for big carrier [National Flight Operations] investigations, Marine Safety for small vessels).

2. The ADMs, Safety and Security, need to clearly establish and communicate their expectations for the way enforcement activities will be carried out at TC.

As indicated above in the Review Area of Governance and Organizational Structure, there is no Program Business Committee for the NEP where the program DGs and management within HQ and the REUs can discuss the planning and monitoring of resources (financial, resources, staffing, priorities of enforcement function). REUs have indicated that there is a lack of budget discussions with NEP HQ to address regional issues.

The following section provides a historical summary of the NEP HQ and REU budgets and spending. This analysis provides a basis for finalizing pending 2024-25 budget decisions.

No recommendation

2019-20

2020-21

2021-22

2022-23

2023-24

Grand Total

2019-20

2020-21

2021-22

2022-23

2023-24

Grand Total

2019-20

2020-21

2021-22

2022-23

2023-24

Grand Total

The NEP organizational structure has not been finalized:

• Positions have not been classified for REU directors or multimodal specialist investigators.
• Many REU employees are acting in their positions, including all the directors and managers and some of the investigators and regulatory case advisors. Out of the total 52 REU employees, 12 (23%) are in acting positions, 11 (22%) are on assignment, and 29 (55%) are indeterminate.
• REU investigators on assignment from the modes / programs are reluctant to make a permanent move to the REU because of the difference in pay between a general technical inspector and a mode specific technical inspector.
• There are no job descriptions for REU investigators, which has resulted in grievances from investigators not wanting to perform multimodal investigations.
• The majority of the REU staff were transferred from the modes / programs, and external staff recruited have largely come from a policing / investigations background.

NEP should work with HR Classification to finalize the organizational chart, positions, and job descriptions.

Although there are some tools (forward planning activities documents, SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats analysis) at early NEP stage, Critical Investment Requirement) in place to manage risks for the NEP implementation and enforcement activities, there is no overarching risk management process, including a risk register, to effectively manage risks related to NEP.

Develop a structured NEP risk management process to ensure departmental enforcement related risks are well identified, documented, communicated, mitigated and reported in a timely manner.

NEP policies (TC Enforcement Policy, Enforcement Communication Policy) and procedures and guidance (Departmental Enforcement Standards [DeskBook]) have been developed for use by the REUs and modes / programs. However:

• The mode / program inspectors have their own policies and procedures that, in some cases, provide enforcement related guidance that does not align with the DeskBook. As such, there are some inconsistencies in the application of the NEP standards among the different modes / programs.
• While the 2024-25 NEP Priorities Plan includes the development of procedures for some specific enforcement activities (e.g., assessment of monetary penalties), and an Investigator Tool Kit, there remains no guidance for other activities such as Integrated Planning and Reporting (IPR) guidance, managing staff and training budgets or service standards. As such, some REUs have developed their own processes (e.g., intake checklist).

• See Recommendation 2, Governance and organizational structure.
• Complete the National Investigator Tool Kit and enforcement procedures for specific activities, including procedures for REU managerial duties.

The REU investigators receive only limited information on the non-compliance case files transferred by the mode / program inspectors as they don’t have access to the systems that would provide them with a complete picture of a file’s compliance history:

• Multimodal Enforcement Reporting System (MMERS) connects to different modal systems; there are still some connection and data quality issues.
• Systems are not integrated – The case management system (Regulus) is not connected to MMERS or the modal systems.
• Investigators do not have access to MMERS or modal systems unless they previously worked in the modes.

Requiring modal support during the investigation adds additional time for completion.

Develop mechanisms that would allow investigators to have access to a file’s complete history.

The Multimodal Oversight and Enforcement Fundamentals (MOEF) training is mandatory for all mode / program inspectors, REU investigators, managers and directors involved in enforcement activities. However, not all required participants have attended the course, and attendance is not monitored to ensure completion. Also, while training feedback from participants is mostly positive, some REU investigators raised concerns that it should focus more on administrative investigations, which are the majority (90-95%), rather than major investigations.

Develop a strategy for monitoring participation in mandatory NEP training.

A case management system (Regulus) has recently been implemented, but concerns were raised that the training was not sufficient, that there are no standard operating procedures, and that it is cumbersome to use for the administrative investigations because all fields are designed for major cases.

Furthermore, Regulus does not generate readily available basic key information for measuring performance (e.g., service standards, no automated feature to flag expiring statute of limitation date).

Improve Regulus functionality by:

• Developing standard operating procedures (SOP), including for administrative investigation cases; and,
• Working with IT to add the possibility of generating performance information.

A NEP change management plan has not been developed to ensure effective engagement and connection of all NEP stakeholders, and to ensure that the NEP vision, key messages, and plans are well communicated and understood. Some examples include:

• Modes / programs unwilling to transfer case files to the NEP REUs.
• NEP REU investigators opening case files based on media reports rather than waiting for documented infractions from the modes / programs.
• NEP does not always receive files on a timely basis, thus delaying the investigation completion and resulting in lapsing of statute of limitations.
• NEP does not always action files on a timely basis.
• Modes / programs attempting to influence the outcomes of investigations (e.g., sanctions, regulatory capture).

While there is a pilot NEP communication protocol for internal stakeholders (ADM briefing, NEP regions to HQ), stakeholders raised the need for clearer and more consistent NEP communication. The protocol for external communication of enforcement has not yet been drafted.

Implement a change management plan to ensure that the NEP vision, roles and responsibilities, key messages, plans, communication protocols, etc. are well communicated, and that modes, programs, and the NEP (HQ and REUs) are well connected.

A national quality assurance (QA) program is not in place to provide oversight of enforcement activities and ensure DeskBook standards are met and consistently applied.

• Prior to transfer of non-compliance case files to the REUs, the modes / programs perform some quality control checks (e.g., MMERS data checks, JEAF quality check). There is some ad hoc QA review of the files by one employee (NEP HQ Investigations Services Directorate) based on his prior experience in an enforcement agency.
• There is no QA performed by the NEP for review of completed investigation cases to ensure national consistency. As such, the REUs have implemented their own ad hoc processes.

Develop a NEP QA program to provide oversight, monitor, and report on the consistency of enforcement activities and ensure standards are met.

There are no national defined or measured performance indicators that stakeholders within the NEP are aware of. The Safety and Security Oversight Analysis Dashboard (SSOAD) simply shows the number of enforcement actions reported. One REU took the initiative to conduct further analysis using national data from the case management system.

There is no standard approach to costing investigations (duration and level of effort).

Identify what data needs to be collected, analyzed, and reported to senior management for decision making.

1. Finalize and implement the NEP Governance Structure that will support NEP’s governance, oversight capabilities, and operations.

This should include implementing a Program Business Committee (PBC), led by the DG, NEP, CEO, with members from NEP HQ and REU management.

1. The NEP has implemented a new reporting structure for its organization, moving from the current Matrix Organization model, which is a Regional reporting structure, to a Centralized Organization model, which will be a National reporting structure, to continue TC’s efforts to strengthen the consistency of TC’s enforcement function through an integrated multimodal approach.
2. The ADMs, Safety and Security, will chair a new Departmental Committee, for Assistant Deputy Ministers, Regional Directors General and Directors General with Oversight and Enforcement responsibilities. The committee will meet at least twice a year, at mid-year and year end and will be responsible for priority setting, providing a strategic direction on the entire oversight and enforcement continuum^{Footnote 2}, including the inspectorates and the NEP, aligning enterprise technology, monitoring, assessing and adjusting the annual plan. Meetings of this new Committee will start formally in September. In the interim, the current Oversight committee will continue, and NEP items will continue there (ongoing).
3. NEP results will be included in quarterly updates to TMX (starting in June) (linked to recommendation 11).
4. The NEP will establish a Program Business Committee (PBC). The PBC will be responsible for providing planning and operational direction and decisions related to policy, regulation, the management and delivery of the program. This includes financial planning, resource allocation, human resources management, communications, and information management.

1. Completed
2. Completed
3. Completed
4. Completed

2. The ADMs, Safety and Security, need to clearly establish and communicate their expectations for the way enforcement activities will be carried out at TC.

1. Establish expectations on how enforcement activities will be consistently carried out nationally at TC and clearly communicate the departmental direction to all Senior Executives with oversight responsibilities.

   Groups with oversight responsibilities will be directed to:

   • Align their oversight and enforcement processes and practices with the Directive on Safety and Security Oversight (DOSSO)^{Footnote 3}, and Departmental Enforcement Standards^{Footnote 4}.
   • Adhere to the roles and responsibilities established in the Departmental Enforcement Standards, for all parties involved in the oversight and enforcement continuum.
   • TC personnel involved in oversight activities, including inspections and enforcement activities, will be required to complete the mandatory Multimodal Oversight and Enforcement Fundamentals (MOEF) training within one year of being designated or authorized.
2. Groups with oversight responsibilities and activities will align their internal policies and practices with the DOSSO and Departmental Enforcement Standards.

1. Completed
2. March 30, 2026

3. NEP should work with HR Classification to finalize the organizational chart, positions, and job descriptions.

1. The NEP to work with EX HR Classification to finalize its Senior Executive organizational structure.
2. The NEP to continue the implementation of the HR Classification work regarding the organization chart, and for non-Executive positions and job descriptions.

1. Completed
2. December 30, 2025

4. Develop a structured NEP risk management process to ensure departmental enforcement related risks are well identified, documented, communicated, mitigated and reported in a timely manner.

The NEP to complete and implement its Risk Management Framework, which will be guided by and linked to the departmental National Oversight Plans process.

December 30, 2026

5. Complete the National Investigator Tool Kit and enforcement procedures for specific activities, including procedures for REU managerial duties.

The NEP to develop the National Enforcement Investigator Tool Kit, including procedures for enforcement investigators and the Managers, and to ensure documents are readily available to the personnel by posting them on TC’s Information Management System.

October 31, 2025

6. Develop mechanisms that would allow investigators to have access to a file’s complete history.

1. The NEP to update the Justification of Enforcement Action Form to include the requirement to provide compliance history.
2. All modes will begin using the updated Justification of Enforcement Action Form.

1. Completed
2. Completed

7. Develop a strategy for monitoring participation in mandatory NEP training.

1. Provide semi-annual Multimodal Oversight and Enforcement Fundamentals (MOEF) training reports on the training status of all inspectors, enforcement investigators, and management personnel.
2. All personnel involved in enforcement activities will complete the mandatory MOEF training. Inspectors and Enforcement Investigators must complete the MOEF training within one year of being designated or authorized, without which some of their designations or authorizations may not be considered valid.
3. Direct all Safety and Security Director Generals with oversight and enforcement responsibilities to attend, as observers or participants, one MOEF training session annually.

1. November 30, 2025
2. Completed
3. Completed

8. Improve Regulus functionality by:

• Developing standard operating procedures (SOP), including for administrative investigation cases; and,
• Working with IT to add the possibility of generating performance information.

1. NEP to increase the use and efficiency of Regulus by continuing the development of standard operating procedures.
2. NEP to work with IT to add, where possible, the development of performance information and metrics in Regulus.

1. Completed
2. September 30, 2026

9. Implement a change management plan to ensure that the NEP vision, roles and responsibilities, key messages, plans, communication protocols, etc., are well communicated, and that modes, programs, and the NEP (HQ and REUs) are well connected.

NEP to develop a comprehensive communication and implementation plan explaining the NEP vision, roles and responsibilities, key messages, communication protocols, and engagement strategies.

Completed

10. Develop a NEP QA program to provide oversight, monitor, and report on the consistency of enforcement activities and ensure standards are met.

NEP to design, develop and implement a Quality Assurance Program for files completed by enforcement investigators to provide oversight, monitor, and report on the consistency of enforcement activities and ensure that standards are met.

March 30, 2027

11. Identify what data needs to be collected, analyzed, and reported to senior management for decision making.

1. NEP to complete the integration of its Program Inventory logic model, and to report periodically via TC reporting cycles.
2. NEP to complete a dashboard with NEP metrics and data to support Senior Management program monitoring and decision-making, including the quarterly presentation of metrics to Senior Management (TMX).

1. Completed
2. Completed