Marine Safety and Security Readiness Assessment for the upcoming International Maritime Organization (IMO) Audit

MSS has an oversight program to perform quality assurance assessments of the Recognized Organizations (ROs) who have been delegated authority to certify Canadian Flag vessels. Although an enforcement mechanism to deal with non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the agreements with ROs has not been established, one is currently under development.

MSS is required to ensure ROs have “adequate resources in terms of technical, managerial and research capabilities”, as per IMO criteria. MSS focuses on the ROs' capacity to get the work done, but does not believe they have the authority to review or make recommendations regarding the RO's staff compliment/qualifications.

IMO will likely focus a lot of its attention to this area, and as such, MSS should ensure it is well prepared to defend its position regarding this criteria.

MSS does not have an overall information management strategy. Each directorate has its own information system(s). While there is an inventory that describes all of the databases available within MSS, there is no comprehensive list of data elements maintained in each database.

MSS does not conduct trend analyses using performance indicators due to staff having a lack of capacity, awareness and knowledge to perform this function.

While MSS does report on performance, it does not use all of the key indicators suggested by IMO. In addition, the analyses that are done do not segregate results between IMO requirements vs non-IMO marine requirements.

MSS' lack of an overall marine data strategy results in a lack of mapping/awareness of overall public risks.

MSS does not have a Quality Management System (QMS) to support national standardization and continuous improvement.

MSS has an out of date list of reception facilities for waste as well as an out of date list of fuel oil suppliers.

Exemptions and Equivalencies granted to Canadian flagged vessels traveling internationally, per the IMO requirements are being tracked but they have not been reported to IMO. MSS is also responsible for updating Canada's dashboard on the IMO website but the information is outdated.

The Program identifies and analyzes overarching issues and risks to the whole transportation system using reliable data and decides whether to intervene to try and mitigate the risks and identify strategic opportunities to improve the level of safety/security.

Expected Results:

A well-defined risk profile for targeting resources to improve the level of transportation safety and/or security while considering all potential economic efficiency and environmental impacts.

In the past some risk-related work had been conducted (ex. 2015 MSS National Risk Survey: environmental scan through analysis of research papers and survey of program staff).

Like all S&S Programs, MSS scans their internal and external environment using the S&S Planning Environment Document (PED). As part of the SWOT exercise, external opportunities, threats and risks are identified. TC's Transformation Team this summer will be assisting all modes to develop their 2020-21 PEDs to help improve the quality of their risk assessments.

Transformation Team is also leading the Public Risk Management Process initiative to develop a methodology and oversight framework to enable the management of risks to the whole transportation system; however, MSS is not included in the initial pilot projects (the focus is on Aviation Security & Rail Safety).

MSS does not have a well-defined risk profile of the marine transportation sector to help support the selection of intervention strategies and targeting resources.

The majority of MSS work (approx. 95%) focusses on planned non-risk-based activities (certification) with fixed cyclical schedules. The regulations may have been risk-based when first established, but there has not been an ongoing review to assess if the cycle is still warranted.

Although MSS collects oversight data, there are important data information gaps (e.g., passenger volumes; number of small fishing vessels).

The TC Transformation Team should consider working with MSS sooner as part of the Public Risk Management Process initiative.

The Program selects and implements appropriate interventions to respond to risks and to take advantage of opportunities to cost effectively support a safe, secure, efficient and clean marine transportation system.

Expected Results:

Program resources deployed in areas of greatest risk/need in a manner that has the greatest impact.

The Program has the flexibility to respond to emerging trends, issues, and innovative opportunities and it strikes the right balance in creating social and economic value.

MSS carried out some targeted interventions to mitigate identified risks in some areas (Concentrated Inspection Campaigns (CICs), Small Vessel Oversight (on-site audits of small vessel manufacturers (vs previous paper-based reviews).

MSS follows a defined process for implementing interventions that involve Regulation. MSS follows the standard regulatory development process including public notification via the Canada Gazette process. MSS along with the other S&S Programs develops a Regulatory Action Plan (RAP) that lists the legislative and regulatory instruments priorities to address safety, security and environmental risks. S&S is taking steps to adapt the transportation regulatory framework to support innovation and economic growth.

MSS has implemented some intervention strategies, but it does not have a process to identify the most cost effective intervention measure or combination of measures. And there is no process in place to assess the performance of existing intervention strategies to confirm they are still required and/or working cost-effectively.

Currently there is very little use of Education, Outreach and Awareness as an Intervention Strategy; MSS management recognizes the need for these activities and some work was carried out in 2017-18 to support the Fishing Vessel Regulations which helps to improve compliance, especially for pleasure craft and small vessel operators. There is a need to assess the costs and benefits of using Education, Outreach and Awareness and other non-regulatory interventions and to try to secure required funding.

The program is well designed with clearly defined activities to implement the instruments selected to mitigate the transportation risks (i.e. choice and combination of oversight tools such as regulatory authorizations, inspections, audits, enforcement).

Expected Results:

Risk in the Transportation sector is managed proactively and consistently, based on an evidence-informed approach.

The recently developed S&S Integrated National Oversight Plan (NOP) is a good step towards providing a better understanding of external and internal factors that are impacting the operational environments of all S&S Programs to identify the drivers behind Program oversight priorities. The Integrated Regulatory Framework Plan (RFP) covers all the key policy, legislative and regulatory functions of S&S.

An improved NOP reporting tool is in development (Collaborative Online Reporting of Activities Ledger (CORAL)) to provide oversight data more readily to Managers.

MSS's National Time and Activity Reporting System (NTARS) codes were simplified and aligned to NOP activities in 2018 to help provide more useful data to eventually support better salary planning.

Through the Delegated Statutory Inspection Program (DSIP), external third parties (Recognized Organizations) are delegated to conduct inspections and issue Canadian maritime documents to vessels enrolled in DSIP.

The Program is efficiently delivered and operating as designed.

Expected Results:

Staff/Delegates have access to consistent, clear and useful guidance and tools (e.g., Standard Operating Procedures –SOPs)The Program has a high level of credibility and strong reputation in the Transportation sector and amongst the public

Recently S&S developed a standard for the development of SOPs for oversight activities. The results of this work will support MSS when it will be in a position to develop a Quality Management System.

The Marine Safety Management System (MSMS) is a compilation of documentation used to administer the Marine Safety programs and policies. The Marine Security Inspection and Compliance Manual provides guidance to marine security inspectors in the performance of their duties.

The Multimodal Personnel Document Issuing System (MPDIS) now tracks inspector credentials and technical training.

TC developed training related to the delegated oversight activities and now delivers it to the delegated inspectors that work for RO's.

The Regions monitor vessels through DSIP, ROs inspect ships, and MSS audits the ROs. MSS has a process in place to conduct oversight of ROs (i.e. Audit Program, work instructions).

MSS will be developing a National HR Staffing and Succession Plan in 2019-20.

There is no MSS QMS process to help ensure SOPs are followed as intended.

SOPs in some of the parts of Marine Safety are up to date, while others are not. SOP updates are completed on an ad hoc basis. MSS needs to develop a plan to meet the newly established S&S SOP Standard.

TC's Multimodal Integrated Technical Training (MITT) group is responsible for ensuring inspectors receive required technical training. Some mandatory training courses are not up to date and some may not be offered when inspectors require them for their credentials. In these cases, MSS issues temporary certificates to their inspectors.

In its 2018-19 NOP, MSS identified recruitment challenges such as:

• recruiting a dynamic technical workforce that reflects demographic and geographic needs
• losing technical expertise and corporate knowledge due to retirement.

MSS has instruments, processes (e.g. Departmental Results Framework - DRF, Performance Information Profiles- PIPs) and methodologies (e.g. Directory for Methodologies) in place to collect data on indicators and targets of the outputs and outcomes of the program.

MSS collects data through approx. 35 database systems.

It is not clear to MSS staff how PIPs, their indicators, outputs and outcomes are aligned with other key MSS planning and reporting documents (PED, NOP, RAP, Integrated Risk Management, Integrated Planning and Reporting). There is a lack of awareness and understanding in the MSS program and among senior management on the development and design of the PIP indicators.

MSS cannot analyze activity costs and assess efficiency and support cost-effectiveness options analysis as the department's financial system is not designed to capture this information. However, MSS has conducted some activity costing for specific activities as part of Cost Recovery modernization work.

MSS data is not integrated, is prone to data entry error and is not reported on systematically. Reports are created by manually extracting the data.

MSS does not have sufficient resources (internal and or/external) with the skills, knowledge, and experience required to collect and analyze data as well as to aggregate and summarize compliance and other safety data for the marine transportation system.

MSS carries out Quality Assurance for one specific part of their Program, the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) Convention.

MSS has processes in place to ensure the improvement of performance measurement instruments and processes (i.e. indicator re-development, adapting tracking and reporting tools to address new information/needs). As a result, there has been an improvement in the completeness of MSS PIP templates. The Directory for Methodologies lists hyperlinks to specific methodologies related to the core responsibility indicators.

MSS does not collect performance information in accordance with its performance measurement structure.

MSS does not have an overall Quality Management System to monitor adherence to national standards and support continuous improvement.

MSS has received limited performance measurement support from Corporate Planning and Reporting.

There is a lack of communication/ consultation from MSS NCR to other programs and regions for PIP indicator design.

Some MSS staff are not aware of the existence of the MSS logic model and the S&S generic logic models and they lack an understanding of the results chain for MSS; PIP design and the selection of appropriate indicators to measure performance.

Performance information/reports are not fully used to gather lessons learned and to inform program design and delivery (i.e. real time feedback).

There is a lack of discussion around performance information (especially the short term outcomes and medium term outcomes) at the senior-management level.

MSS does not have integrated reporting and communication tools to link into relevant horizontal initiatives (e.g. OPP, Transformation). Work on departmental priorities (e.g. OPP, Transmountain Pipeline, Whales) increases the pressure on the mandatory/core activities, impacting their delivery.

The Program has a clear mission, goals, objectives.

The Program has appropriate authorities and the Public and industry easily understand their rights and obligations.

The majority of MSS oversight activities are prescribed in more than 100 acts, regulations, standards, memorandums of understanding and memorandums of agreement (ex. Canada Shipping Act 2001, International Maritime Organization (IMO)).

MSS develops several planning documents to plan and monitor its work (ex. National Oversight Plan (NOP), Regulatory Action Plan (RAP), Workplan).

MSS' participation in the IMO international standard setting builds trust and support and aligns with overall Canadian direction.

MSS derives its authorities primarily from CSA, MTSA, AWPPA. Each will be assessed against 11 modern authorities Legislative Modernization team has identified for TC.

As data requirements are defined to better support risk assessment, intervention selection, oversight program design and measuring program performance, then MSS should determine if regulatory changes are required to ensure MSS can assess or compel the reporting of required data from industry to TC.

Once a profile of the marine transportation system risks is developed, and existing and potential intervention strategies are assessed, required changes to the existing authorities should be identified and as part of the Regulatory Action Plan planning process priorities and timelines for obtaining new authorities or modify existing authorities should be set.

The Program exercises its authorities in a manner engendering public and industry confidence and trust in the independence of the Program and its decisions.

The Program effectively consults and engages the public, industry, other government departments, all levels of government and international authorities.

MSS must follow the TC Values and Ethics Code, Conflict of Interest and Post Employment.

Senior Management responds to issues raised by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations (SJCSR).

MSS consults and engages with stakeholders such as the Canadian Marine Advisory Council (CMAC), Interdepartmental Security Working Group (IMSWG) and the IMO.

A costing methodology in place which is effective and is consistently used across MSS. (Planning)

Common business practices regarding how budgets should be allocated to different management levels (DG, director, managers, etc.) to hold managers accountable are defined, documented, and communicated. (Budgeting)

Common business rules (e.g. use of SMS global costs, discounts, overtime etc.) are clearly defined, documented and communicated, and their uses are monitored. (Forecasting)

Sound performance measures are established to incentivize the desired behaviors from RC Managers (RCMs) and Corporate Services support functions. (Reporting)

There is a lack of costing methodologies and guidance to appropriately support budget allocation decisions.

MSS has many systems to collect data (e.g. NTARS) but these systems do not link to the financial system.

Due to a lack of data analysis capability, no historic or detailed data analysis has been conducted to support better planning, budgeting, forecasting, and reporting.

Due to the complexity of the MSS structure with multiple Program Inventories (PIs) that MSS contributes to or receives funding from, resource management is complicated and requires comprehensive data trend analysis, as well as standard guidance or rules to ensure consistent data entry practices among MSS related Program Inventories (PIs) and regions.

Roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities are clearly defined and understood by people involved in planning, budgeting, forecasting and reporting, and how they are all interrelated.

RCMs have sufficient knowledge, experience, and capability to cost the activities, manage the risks resulting from budget changes, promptly identify and report surplus/ deficits, review and understand the reports/information/data provided by Corporate Services supporting functions to identify discrepancies/issues for further investigation/analysis

Corporate Services supporting functions understand program's business, and have the capability to challenge the resource management decisions made by RCMs.

There is sufficient, continuous, open, transparent, and timely communication (HQ & Regions, RCMs with Corporate Services supporting functions) regarding activities that will impact the budget and forecast.

Some roles and responsibilities are not clear, especially for helping ensure the quality of financial data entry. To date FMAs have not received any specific training or guidance to standardize financial data entry protocols/rules which would help reduce the risk to data quality.

Recommendations related to FMA training from Financial Management Quality Control's (FMQC) 2016-17 assessment of Budgeting, Forecasting, and Reporting have not been implemented according to the most recent MAP response.

Program's activities are costed based on relevant risk and performance data including historical trends. RCMs adequately cost core on-going activities. (Planning)

Budget allocations based on defined needs supported by risk and performance data, historical trends, and clear linkages to government priorities, and also clear simple guidance in place. (Budgeting)

Complete, accurate and timely data are input into corporate financial and HR systems to reflect the realities. Both RCMs and Corporate Services exercise the validation. (Forecasting)

The reports/ analyses provided by Corporate Services supporting functions to RCMs are sufficient, accurate, relevant, and timely. The presentations are understandable and highlight the issues/ risks to facilitate RCMs' decision-making on forecast adjustment and identification of surpluses/ deficits timely. (Forecasting)

There are no documented procedures/ rules to follow in order to effectively plan the activities, allocate the budget, forecast, and report. The IPR process and guidance are high level and the management reporting requirements have continually changed over the past few years.

There is an opportunity to build on and continue to use the data visualization analysis tools developed by the Internal Audit team to better support MSS's strategic planning and decision-making.

MSS has the authority under the CSA to incorporate by reference into national regulations changes made to IMO conventions.

Canada's implementation of this authority is part of a systematic approach and 5-year regulatory plan.

MSS continues to work within our legislative and regulatory framework to meet IMO requirements. (Ongoing)

Although the 2007 IMO Audit findings were previously closed, further action is being undertaken to address new gaps:

Given new electronic reporting requirements, to the IMO, MSS is working to submit outstanding electronic reports

Review of on-the-job training documents, including policies and procedures, for inspectors initiated, and workplan with detailed timelines is under development. (2021)

5.1 The Departmental Regulatory Affairs (DRA) Group is currently developing a process for selecting the most cost-effective regulatory and/or non-regulatory interventions based on evidence-based identification and assessment of risks (“Regulatory Playbook”)

5.2 Once the Regulatory Playbook is finalized, MSS will use it moving forward. (Ongoing)

6.1 Complete the roll-out and implementation of the Collaborative Online Reporting and Activities Ledger (CORAL) to digitize the planning for the oversight function

6.2 Complete an instructional guide on reporting on the National Oversight Plan (NOP)

6.3 Continue to work with the Digital Services Directorate (DSD) on the Department's Data Strategy, and expand on the MSS data needs

6.4 In collaboration with the Digital Services Transformation Office (DSTO), develop new digital solutions to modernize MSS services, which will enhance service delivery, and reporting capabilities for several programs (Ongoing)

7.1 In collaboration with Corporate Human Resources, create four QA positions and staff these positions as soon as possible

7.2 Develop a national QA Framework

7.3 Develop a three-year QA Action Plan (March 2020)