Transport Committee on April 25th, 2007

[Keith E. Creel]

I acknowledge that the perception is certainly there that we've broken trust with Canadians.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I'll take that as a no.

Your actions speak an awful lot louder than your words.

In your own opening statement you said you've increased your audit and inspection processes. Are you willing to admit, or is this an admission that CN didn't have enough oversight in place in the first place?

[Keith E. Creel]

No, that's not a correct statement. When it comes to our testing and our rail track testing, or our ultrasonic testing, the fact is you could test 10 times as much as we test and in fact you would never catch every defect that could potentially lead to a derailment or an accident. As long as we run trains, as long as we have steel on steel, the fact is we can never guarantee you 100% of the time that we're never going to have another derailment.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I find it interesting that you call them “efficiency” and not “safety” tests, by the way.

When you talk about these efficiency tests, you say it's alarming how many problems show up, and then you go on to explain how it's a worker problem. You know, I worked on the line for a major auto assembler, a multinational corporation. I was in assembly, and if you had an individual problem with workers not buying into the safety culture, it was pretty easy. But when you have that many workers who are having problems with the safety culture, I would suggest that's a systems problem, not a worker problem. So it's higher up the pike.

I want to ask a couple of questions, in light of some of these problems at CN. I'd like to know how many workers have been disciplined over these issues. How many managers, more importantly, are disciplined? As a worker, you're a cog in a wheel. I'd like to get a sense of how much of the discipline has fallen on management--the system that manages all the cogs, the folks higher up--versus the workers. I think Canadians would be interested to know how you've handled these issues. I'm hearing a lot of blame for the workers. I'd like to hear some numbers on this, or is that proprietary information you don't want to share with me?

[Keith E. Creel]

No, it's certainly not proprietary, but for me to able to tell you that, I'd have to go back to the data. I can tell you factually that we have disciplined managers and we have disciplined craft employees. All employees all held to the same standards, whether they're a manager or a craft employee. It's laid out in our rules and our regulations. They're held accountable.

For our craft employees, there is a prescribed way to discipline within our collective agreements. Our managers are dealt with completely differently, but in both cases, in both situations, they are held to the same standard.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I tell you, I can certainly identify with someone like Mr. Rhodes. At the company I used to work for they measured five things: safety, quality, delivery, cost, and morale. If you asked any employee on the line, they would tell you that they thought instead that the five were delivery, cost, quality, safety, and morale, because the actions of the corporation spoke a lot louder than their measurements.

I used to be in an inspection job, in final inspection. I got moved off that job because I actually followed the things they wanted me to follow in terms of an inspection. So I guess that's how companies address safety and inspection issues with their workers.

I'm going to ask you something. We had testimony here that when you flip open the GOI, safety is number four. I'd like to get a sense of your opinion. Where in the rules or at what number in the rules does safety come when your employee flips open their book?

[Keith E. Creel]

It's first.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Is it first? Okay. We've heard it's number four. Can you provide something to the committee that would show us?

[Keith E. Creel]

I have a rule book with me, yes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay. Can you provide it later, through the chair?

[Keith E. Creel]

Absolutely.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Watson.

Mr. Bell is next, and then I'm going to go one final brief round. I'm going to give you about a minute and a half each to close it up.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I want to ask one question, and you can you provide information....

What happened to the dynamic brakes that were in B.C.? Where did those engines go? How many of the engines that you have in B.C. right now have dynamic braking? That's technical information, and I'd appreciate getting it, because B.C. has unusual geography, as I understand it.

Mr. Marshall, you've referenced perception several times. I spent a number of years in a major Canadian corporation at an executive level. The theme we dealt with was that perception is reality. Within our company we would hear things, and I'd have managers saying it wasn't so and I'd tell them that's what we're hearing in complaints from our customers, so as far as they're concerned, it is so, and therefore it is so; it affects our business.

What I'm interested in, Mr. Creel, is that you were working for a company in Michigan when there was a head-on collision. If that's the head-on collision I've heard of, I understand that the fault in it was attributed to fatigue of the crew. In fact, the crew that was assigned--it may not have been yours, but another one--was theoretically a fresh crew. I'm curious about the issue of fatigue. It was brought to us earlier that you work 12 hours and you can be called back very quickly. There isn't an adequate rest period between times, whether you're at your home station or away. I would appreciate getting an understanding of that.

Finally, I'll go back to a point raised by Mr. Watson and some others. Mr. Fast questioned this as well, and others on my side have asked the question. It is the concern we had from Mr. Rhodes. We requested these people to come as witnesses, you need to know. We went out looking for people. We saw, obviously, stories that appeared in the media and we contacted these people. I don't think they were formally summoned, for want of a better term, but they were invited, and if they hadn't come, we could have summoned them.

He said:

I don't think it's right when a company can fire you for what they call “conduct unbecoming of an employee”. When you're not at work and you speak out and try to say something is wrong, they fire you because of that and they call it, in their generic terminology, “conduct unbecoming of a CN employee”.

Do you consider that someone who comes and tells us there are problems here is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a CN employee? Would someone like Mr. Rhodes or Mr. Holliday, for example, run the risk of being fired for appearing before this committee?

[Keith E. Creel]

Let me comment on that. We understand that the committee invited Mr. Rhodes to testify as to his experience, and we respect the committee's desire to obtain his perspective. Certainly, we have no intention...he will not be disciplined for appearing before this committee.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Do you mean Mr. Holliday as well?

[Keith E. Creel]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise, you have about a minute and a half.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you very much.

Earlier my colleague asked you a question concerning the Safety Management System and all that. You said that it had improved your situation. You also understood that the 2006 CN management practices audit report was devastating. That troubles me because you seem to be saying that things are working, but the report clearly shows that a lot of irregularities were found.

I'm going to ask you a question on a very specific subject, the Quebec City bridge. You have been unable to repaint it because it's rusted, and you may not have the necessary money. What guarantees do I have that it's safe? How can you guarantee that the Quebec City bridge is safe, since you aren't maintaining it, since you're not painting it, and it's therefore deteriorating and rusting a lot?

[Keith E. Creel]

First and foremost, the Quebec City bridge is inspected by certified engineers. The maintenance of the bridge and the painting of the bridge--the aesthetics of the bridge--are two separate issues.

This company, when we were privatized, had an obligation to contribute to painting and helping with the aesthetics of the Quebec City bridge. This company has fulfilled that obligation. However, we maintain the obligation for maintenance and we uphold and meet our obligation for maintenance. Simply because it may have rust on it aesthetically does not mean that mechanically or in terms of engineering it is not structurally sound or that there are any safety concerns. There are absolutely not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Julian, for one minute.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I have three questions to finish. First, there is a perception that CN has cut corners on safety. I'd like to know how many employees CN has laid off or terminated in Canada over the last five years.

Second, because in 2006 there is certainly a perception that inspections and more oversight made the difference, is that part of the solution--more inspections and more oversight from the government and less SMS?

Third is a small question, but I think an important one. Witnesses told us you couldn't use the words “Canadian National” anymore within CN. Is the word “Canadian” now a bad word at CN? I noticed that nowhere does “Canadian National” appear in the document you submitted.

[Jim Vena]

Let me answer on the Canadian National thing very quickly. I'm a Canadian. I was raised in Jasper, Alberta. I went to the University of Alberta. I graduated from Athabasca University. And it's nice to know that you noticed that.

When you buy and merge with a number of companies, whether it's Wisconsin Central, Illinois Central, or BC Rail, CN is a known Canadian company and institution. We did not do it because we have a problem being Canadians, when most of us are still Canadians. We call it CN so it's one company. We did it so the people in the U.S. would not continue to call themselves CNIC. I'm not sure where this comes from.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you very much, Mr. Vena.

We have some committee business we have to deal with. We appreciate your taking the time out. We know it is a hectic time for you. I think part of your appearance today, during Rail Safety Week, is that it's important that we get these issues discussed. We look forward to future discussions. I thank you.

I'm going to take a brief two-minute recess. If everyone wants to move out they can, and then we'll come back to committee business.

[Keith E. Creel]

Could I make one more comment, Mr. Chair?