Transport Committee on April 1st, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I call our meeting to order.

For the first hour today, we have representatives here from the Transportation Safety Board. Thank you very much for being here.

With that, I'll turn it over to you. I'm sure you have some opening comments.

[Wendy Tadros, Chair, Transportation Safety Board of Canada]

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, honourable members, I want to thank you for inviting the Transportation Safety Board of Canada to appear here today.

I bring with me three colleagues who offer a wealth of experience. Mr. Jean Laporte is our chief operating officer. He has been with us since our inception in 1990 and possesses a deep understanding of the mandate and the processes we follow. Kathy Fox has been a member of the board since 2007. She has over four decades of aviation experience and is an expert in safety management systems. Mr. Kirby Jang is our director for rail and pipeline investigations. He's well placed to provide greater context and information on TSB rail investigations, as well as the statistics we hold and why we hold them.

We are here today because you're conducting a review on the transportation of dangerous goods in Canada and the role of safety management systems.

A number of high-profile accidents here and south of the border have shone a spotlight on rail safety and the transportation of crude oil. They have forced us to re-examine whether our operations are safe enough, and if not, what needs to be done to improve matters.

Today there is a heightened fear. There has been, and there is no other way to put this, an erosion of public trust. Five years ago, the amount of oil moved by rail across Canada filled 500 cars, maybe five or six long trains. but last year, that figure rose to 160,000, and it is projected to go higher in the coming years. Canadians know that much of this oil is volatile.

No accident speaks more profoundly to the risks than that in Lac-Mégantic, where last July a train carrying crude oil derailed and caught fire, killing 47 people. In this investigation, we still have months ahead of us, months in which we will complete our investigation and report to Canadians.

That being said, early on in this investigation we identified important safety issues and communicated them to regulators. Then in late January, in an unprecedented move, the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, and the TSB made parallel recommendations aimed at making the transportation of crude oil safer across North America.

In Canada, we called for tougher standards for class 111 tank cars. That's because in Lac-Mégantic the entire train was made up of older unprotected tank cars, and almost every tank car was breached, fuelling the fire.

I want to show you an animation. This car was in the middle of the train, and you can see how very badly damaged it was. As you can see from this photo, even the cars at the end of the train, which are the cars on the right of the photo, these are the cars that were moving relatively slowly when they derailed. Even those cars were very badly damaged. That has taught us something.

Today, the rail industry is moving toward a new standard for general service class 111 tank cars, and that's a good thing. But a long and gradual phase-out of older model cars simply isn't good enough. It leaves too much risk in the system. That's why we were crystal clear that commodities posing significant risk must be shipped in containers that are safe, and the sooner, the better.

Our second recommendation dealt with the way railways plan their transportation, how they choose the routes on which oil and other dangerous goods are carried, and how they ensure train operations over those routes are safe. This involves a comprehensive system-wide review of many variables. It's about looking at what lies ahead along each route, identifying alternative routes, and choosing the ones with the least risk. It means, for example, ensuring that the track is maintained to the highest standard, that speeds are appropriate, and that wayside detection systems are in all the right places. This needs to be followed up with risk assessments in order to ensure the steps being taken will keep our communities safe.

Our final recommendation to emerge early from the Lac-Mégantic investigation was about making sure that when something does go wrong even in the face of advance planning, that the right resources are in place to reduce the severity and impact of a spill. We therefore called for emergency response assistance plans where large volumes of liquid hydrocarbons, like oil, are being shipped.

An answer to our recommendations is due later this month. We are encouraged by the minister's response to our early communications on Lac-Mégantic. It signals an understanding of the risks of carrying more and more oil by rail, what is at stake, and the need to address the risks that the TSB finds. In responding to our recommendations, it is my hope that the minister will lead with initiatives to squarely deal with these three important safety issues.

Now l'd like to discuss one of the other ways of ensuring our transportation network is as safe as it can be. That's the second topic you have been tasked with addressing: safety management systems, or SMS. As my colleague Kathy Fox so aptly put it, safety management systems help companies find trouble before trouble finds them. Let's be clear: an SMS is not a panacea, nor should it be mistaken for one. However, it is a very good tool, one that helps to find the biggest risks so that mitigating steps can be taken.

At the Transportation Safety Board, we think SMS is so important that we put it on our inaugural safety watch list in 2010. To be fair, Canada's major railways and a number of short lines have been working to implement SMS, and they've taken significant steps. However, 12 years later, many of the systems they've implemented are not yet mature. That means they are not netting all the safety benefits that they should. l'm talking about the need for audits and for strong regulatory oversight. l'm talking about risk-based inspections and, where appropriate, enforcement to ensure compliance. The Auditor General's report reaffirms the importance of all these things, and we strongly agree.

Before I close, I would like to note that we've recently updated our own regulations, modernizing reporting requirements, and harmonizing thresholds for dangerous goods with the TDG, transportation of dangerous goods, regulations. That will mean more notifications about trains that go off the rails. For example, all one- and two-wheel derailments must now be reported to the TSB. It will also mean that when a release of dangerous goods leads to consequences, such as death, injury, collision, derailment, fire or explosion, or any other threat to the safety of Canadians, railways must report these spills, no matter how small.

That's where we are today. None of the safety issues are about to disappear anytime soon. This committee has an enormous task ahead, not just to examine the issues of SMS and the transportation of dangerous goods, not just to hold hearings and find out ways to ensure that our railways, our waterways, our pipelines, and our skies are as safe as they can be, but also to make recommendations that will lead to real action, concrete measures to shore up and restore shaken public confidence. In all of this, we at the TSB share your goals. Advancement of transportation safety is our mandate. We've spent more than two decades working at it, and you will find us committed, informed, dedicated, and very cooperative.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thanks very much, Ms. Tadros.

That picture you have up there, pictures don't always tell the whole story, but after being there last summer, it brings back that it was a terrible tragedy, a terrible mess.

Thanks very much for your opening comments.

With that, Mr. Mai, for seven minutes.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today. I especially thank them for the work they do at the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.

For the NDP, all the recommendations that you have made are very important. You mentioned in closing that we need to act. When did the Transportation Safety Board of Canada raise the issue of the DOT-111 tank cars? When did you first point out there were problems with them?

[Wendy Tadros]

We first flagged issues with those cars about 20 years ago. They started to come up in our investigations. We made a couple of very specific points on them. As time went on we learned more and more. I would say that this accident gave us the opportunity to learn the very most, because the whole train was class 111 tank cars. We were able to study each and every tank car to see how it performed and how it failed in the accident. That's why we came out with a very firm recommendation on January 23.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much for your recommendations.

With respect to the older DOT-111 tank cars, you said they should be retired from service. There is still no deadline for the gradual removal of these old tank cars.

The government says we must work with our neighbours to the south, meaning the United States. In your opinion, is it possible to issue a recommendation that the older DOT-111 tank cars be forbidden from moving through densely populated areas, for example, downtown cores? Would that not be an acceptable recommendation at least until the government sets a deadline?

[Wendy Tadros]

I'm not sure that it is possible from a system point of view. When I look at what is carried across Canada and the routes that those products have to travel over, I'm not sure that it is possible to avoid every urban area. We would rather see a more systemic approach that would have those older cars phased out so that the cars that do go through all of our communities will be safer.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I know the Minister of Transport has stated that a 10-year deadline, as proposed by the United States, is too long. We know that Canadian National has said that its deadline is about four years. The Irving oil company has mentioned a one-year deadline. Are you able to come up with a recommendation on that deadline? Or would you prefer leaving it up to the government to set its own deadline?

[Wendy Tadros]

What we have said is the sooner the better. The longer those cars are out there, the longer the risk is in the system. It is a very complex situation, and you're quite correct when you say that there has to be coordination with the Americans. This traffic is going back and forth across the border all the time, so you can't say some cars are American and some are Canadian. You can't do that.

What we have said to the regulators is, “This is your job. You work this out, and you come up with a timeframe that will get those cars out of service”, and the sooner the better.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

You stated that you discussed your recommendations with the Minister of Transport in terms of drawing up a plan. Do you know whether the minister has a specific plan for the deadline?

[Wendy Tadros]

The way it works with TSB recommendations is that the minister has 90 days in which to respond to our recommendations. That 90-day period is up on April 23. We will be watching very carefully to see what the response is.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

After the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, you said that the Minister of Transport should require emergency preparedness plans for the transportation of large quantities of liquid hydrocarbons. Do those not already exist? What are the gaps and why do you need to make that kind of recommendations when it should have already existed? Are there currently gaps on the government side of things in this area?

[Wendy Tadros]

There are emergency response assistance plans required for some commodities, but they are not required right now for crude oil. This is what we are saying, that we need to take that model and extend it to crude oil.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Has the Transportation Safety Board expressed concern? We know that Transport Canada recently studied the classification of crude oil in one category. Has the TSB already raised the issue of crude oil being more dangerous today because of the additives it contains? If so, how long ago?

[Wendy Tadros]

We first raised the issue of the properties of the crude oil in the Lac-Mégantic tank cars in September. Then the government moved forward with requirements for testing and proper classification of those goods.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I would like to come back to the issue of SMSs, which you discussed. In your opinion, for municipalities to be able to act and prepare themselves, would they not have to be properly informed about products moving through their area to ensure they have the necessary resources to prevent or deal with any accident or serious incident?

[Wendy Tadros]

This is an issue that we'll leave between the municipalities, the provinces, and Transport Canada. We are more concerned that there be emergency plans in place and that there be the right materials and resources there in the event that there is a catastrophe.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to Mr. McGuinty, for seven minutes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for coming.

If I could quickly ask about the Lac-Mégantic investigation, does the Transportation Safety Board have all the financial resources it needs to complete this work?

[Wendy Tadros]

Absolutely. The way things work at the TSB is that we normally operate within our budget, the budget we're given, but if there are extraordinary circumstances, we can go to Treasury Board and request further funds. We can make a submission. We did that in the case of this investigation, and those funds were approved.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Okay.

[Wendy Tadros]

This investigation, obviously, is one of our top priorities.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

The second question is based on the notes you distributed and spoke from, Ms. Tadros. It deals with the SMS. You say that the SMS is a very good tool that helps to mitigate steps in advance. Then you go on to say that you have serious problems with respect to the way in which the safety management systems are overseen by the regulator, Transport Canada. You talk about the need for audits and for strong regulatory oversight. You cite the Auditor General's report. I think a lot of Canadians get it; they understand that there's a partnership between the regulator—the government—and the railway companies.

How far are you willing to go? What else are we supposed to do here in this committee to strengthen regulatory oversight? What can you offer up here for our advice?

[Wendy Tadros]

I'm going to ask Kathy Fox to address that, because this is absolutely her area of expertise.

[Kathy Fox, Board Member, Transportation Safety Board of Canada]

Safety management systems are extremely important to a transportation mode, an organization, to help identify and manage risk. That being said, they don't take away the need for very strong oversight, and that oversight can vary from strict inspections, to confirmed compliance, to auditing the effectiveness of their processes. The two work hand in hand. SMS shouldn't be a substitute for regulation or a substitute for oversight.