Debates of May 7th, 2014

Transport—Main Estimates, 2014–15

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Chair, what Canadians heard is that the minister is not responsible for this, and she has done absolutely nothing to lower costs to make our Canadian airports more competitive.

I would like to go back to rail safety, and I want to rely on the most objective document produced in the last two years in Canada, which is the report of the Auditor General, on rail safety. I want to review for Canadians a number of the Auditor General's key findings and conclusions.

First, the Auditor General and his team audited a three-year period at Transport Canada, which is this minister's department. She is the fifth minister in eight years, transiting through, I guess in terms of this cabinet, either up, down, or out.

However, the Auditor General's report on whether federal railways have actually implemented safety management systems states that “Transport Canada has yet to establish an audit approach that provides a minimum level of assurance that federal railways have done so”.

That is number one, which flies in the face of the minister's assertion that there are SMSs as a world-class system in place.

Two, on safety, the Auditor General says that Transport Canada does not have clear timelines. The report states: “We found that the work plans are vague in terms of timelines for monitoring progress on important safety issues”.

Three, critical information is not available at Transport Canada. It cannot deliver up risk assessments. It cannot give us information on the sections of track used in transporting dangerous goods; and I think of Lac-Mégantic. It cannot give us information on the condition of railway bridges. It cannot give us financial information of privately owned federal railways not publicly available.

The Auditor General then tells us that Transport Canada, in the three fiscal years that were audited, actually only performed 14 audits. That is 14 audits when they themselves said that only constituted 25% of the audits that they said had to be done in order to keep rail safe in this country. In fact, in that three-year period, VIA Rail, which carries four million passengers a year, was not audited once.

Not once.

I asked the minister earlier about qualified inspectors. In 2009, Transport Canada said that it needed 20 system auditors to audit each railway once every three years. How many were in place? There were only 10, half of what is required.

Next, the Auditor General tells us that Transport Canada does not know whether its current staff of inspectors have the required skills and competencies to do their jobs: “Inspectors and managers were not trained on a timely basis”.

The Auditor General says that they cannot even warrant that inspectors are objective and independent because they are coming from the private sector and mainly from federal railways.

This is a scathing indictment of the last eight years, and five ministers, on rail safety. However, when we listen to the minister speak, all is good with rail safety, apparently.

Can the minister explain to Canadians how it is possible that these findings are so serious that at committee, the Auditor General stated clearly that he is going to be adding another interim report to examine how much progress has been made under the current government.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, first of all, let me quote from the Auditor General's report in general, where it states that: “We did not examine the safety of federal and other railways’ operations. We also did not examine the overall safety of Canada’s rail industry”.

I stand by my comments about the safety of our rail industry and the importance of making it safer.

With respect to the recommendations, we did thank the Auditor General for his report and his recommendations because, clearly, a 26% audit is unacceptable. That is why the department was asked for a rail safety Office of the Auditor General action plan, which I have a copy of. The department is marked against it in terms of benchmarking. It has provided complete timelines; timely completion dates, which are needed; and it is monitored by me and my office on an ongoing basis.

With respect to audits and auditors in training, in the spring of this year, all 100 inspectors will have the ability to conduct audits and they will be trained up. We will continue to hit those marks of 30,000-plus inspections each year, which are inspections that are exceeding greatly what we have done in the past.

I can tell members that I said, when this report came out first in November, that should the department not be adhering to its action plan, I would not hesitate to ask the Auditor General to come back to review to ensure that this work is carried out. I stand by that statement now as well.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr.Chair, Canadians are finding out that crude oil shipped by rail in Canada has increased 32,000% since 2009. The Conservative government has known for eight years. I am absolutely certain that in the transition documents that were prepared for the minister's predecessor, the government was forewarned about this massive increase in the transportation of dangerous goods by rail. The present minister knows, and so does the Prime Minister, that in the next 10 years if every pipeline as proposed for our country is built and in full usage, there will be a million barrels per day of excess oil production in Canada. How is it going to be transported? It is going to be transported by rail.

Instead of taking the Auditor General's report, thanking him for his good work and sending him on his way, could the minister explain why there is no sense of urgency in the wake of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy? In the face of this massive increase in the transportation of dangerous goods, diluted bitumen by rail, why has there been no significant increase in expenditures for rail safety? We know from the public accounts of 2012-13, VIA Rail was cut 15%, aviation safety was cut 11%, marine safety was cut 25%, road safety was cut 5.5% and rail safety remained relatively constant.

I would remind Canadians before the minister responds that the government spends more money on economic action plans, obscene, self-promoting economic action plan advertisements, than it does on rail safety.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, as I have already indicated, what the main estimates will show us is that aviation safety decreased as a result of a transfer of the airports capital assistance sub-program. It is not because of what the member said.

In terms of any reductions in either marine safety or in rail safety, they have all been administrative matters. They have nothing to do with safety. We would never cut inspector positions as a result.

With respect to rail safety, we started in 2007 on this path by studying rail. We are the ones who brought forward amendments to the Railway Safety Act. Yes, they were passed by everybody, but we moved them forward because we wanted to make it a safer system, recognizing it is safe. In fact, it has been quoted as being safe even by the former member for Trinity—Spadina, who said, “Shipping materials by train are...very safe and the record is really quite good”. She said that in October 2013, recognizing that the system was safe, and I agree with her on that topic.

We want to make it safer and we are reacting to what the Transportation Safety Board is indicating to us as it unfolds what happened at Lac-Mégantic.

We have indicated protective directives need to be in place on sharing information with municipalities to deal with first responder issues.

We also made a protective directive with respect to prosper classification, knowing that this crude oil in particular was very unique and very different in the way it reacted.

We also directed, through a protective direction, to require shippers to develop ERAPs for the flammable liquids that I noted before. I have set up an ERAP task force. I have reached out to industry. We have had working groups.

We have been on this issue since we became government. We have never relented on this issue. We absolutely believe in the health and safety of Canadians. We will do all we can to ensure that Canadians are safe and that we get our goods to market at the same time.

[The Chair, NDP, Joe Comartin]

That concludes that segment.

The hon. member for Elmwood--Transcona.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Chair, I too would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the minister's birthday today and wish her the best. Hopefully she will have a much better celebration in one of the nights to come, because this is not a great way to celebrate one's birthday.

That being said, Canada's rail system has been central to the development of this country. There are some 48,000 kilometres of track, enough to go around the world. We have one of the largest rail networks on the globe.

Rail has connected Canadians to each other and, by transporting Canadian goods to markets, is crucial to our economic prosperity. Some 70% of our surface freight moves by rail, including bulk commodities such as agricultural and forestry products, minerals, and energy products, including oil.

In recent years, more than 40% of our gross domestic product has been generated by bulk commodities. We use rail to move what are called dangerous goods. Dangerous goods play a vital role in the North American economy, but they are substances that could pose a threat to people or the environment. These shipments include oil and gas.

Every day such shipments move routinely and safely across Canada by rail without incident. Canadians depend on many of these goods to go about their daily lives. In fact, more than 30 million shipments of dangerous goods are transported annually in this country. Let me note again that almost all their destinations are reached without incident.

However, this past summer a tragic incident did occur. On July 6, an unmanned Montreal, Maine and Atlantic train containing crude oil derailed in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec. The explosion and fire that followed killed 47 people, caused significant damage to the town, and released more than five million litres of crude oil. The events in Lac-Mégantic underline the ongoing need for rail safety.

An on-site investigation was immediately launched by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. The TSB provides an extremely valuable service to the government and Canadians. It operates independently of the government and makes recommendations following investigations into transportation incidents.

Earlier this year, the TSB made interim recommendations based on its ongoing investigation into the tragic Lac-Mégantic incident. Our government took decisive action to address the TSB recommendations.

Just recently, the Minister of Transport directed her department to further strengthen rail safety in Canada by removing the least crash-resistant DOT-111 tank cars from service; requiring DOT-111 tank cars that do not meet the standard published in January 2014 in Canada Gazette part 1 or any other future standard to be phased out within three years; requiring emergency response assistance plans for even a single tank car containing crude oil, gasoline, diesel, aviation fuel, or ethanol; creating a task force that brings municipalities, first responders, railways, and shippers together to strengthen emergency response capacity across the country; and requiring railway companies to reduce the speed of trains carrying dangerous goods and to implement other key operating practices.

However, I should note, given the integration of Canada and U.S. rail networks, that rail cars cross the border both ways every day, so we also require a North American solution. When it comes to developing a new standard for rail cars, we do not exist in isolation and must consider our training partners in the United States.

As such, the Minister of Transport continues to work with her American counterpart to accelerate the development of even more stringent standards in keeping with the TSB recommendations.

In addition, here in Parliament the minister has asked the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to review safety management systems for railways and the transport of dangerous goods. I mention this because I want to point out that Canada has in fact paid attention to safety in rail transportation. Those who say otherwise need to examine the facts.

In addition to the actions I have mentioned, our government is also taking other steps to address this important issue. On sharing TDG information with municipalities, the minister has stated that our government remains committed to a two-way dialogue and information exchange with key transportation stakeholders in communities across Canada. A protective direction was issued to make sure this happened.

On classification of dangerous goods, the minister announced a directive to ensure that all crude oil being transported is properly tested and classified and that results are sent to Transport Canada.

This provides Transport Canada with an additional means to monitor industry compliance and focus our efforts for the greatest safety benefit of Canadians.

When we look at all these actions together, we can see that our government is taking an approach that is similar to the world-class tanker safety initiative that we developed for marine transportation. It focuses on prevention, response, and liability.

Our government is committed to rail safety and, prior to this tragedy, took numerous other actions to strengthen it. It is worth noting some of them.

In 2009, we increased funding to ensure a permanent rail inspectorate of over 100 positions nationally. By last spring, Transport Canada had 101 railway safety inspectors and 35 dangerous goods inspectors. It has implemented a new, aggressive staffing plan to increase oversight capacity. For example, between April 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013, rail safety inspectors conducted more than 30,000 inspections. Our government has also invested more than $100 million in the rail safety system.

We have also taken legislative steps. Last year, final amendments to the Railway Safety Act went into effect, providing the authority to introduce new regulations to strengthen safety and oversight programs. These new regulations include increased fines for companies that break rules, a requirement that rail carriers submit environmental management plans, the creation of whistle-blower protection for employees with safety concerns, and a call for rail companies to have an executive legally responsible for safety.

I want to also note other measures we took immediately following the events in Lac Mégantic. The Minister of Transport directed her department to issue an emergency directive to rail companies, with five requirements: two operators are required at all times for trains carrying dangerous goods; all cabins must be locked; all reverses must be removed from locomotives; all brakes must be properly applied on all locomotives; and no trains can be left unattended without new strict conditions. Our government made these rules permanent.

These actions would build on steps that Transport Canada is also taking to bolster the safety of our rails and the transportation of dangerous goods. To this end, we have said we will work to enhance the collection of safety data and the tools to analyze safety risks and improve and expand the fleet of vehicles used to assess rail tracks. We will improve how information about dangerous goods shipments is shared with municipalities, conduct research to support safety technologies, promote a culture of safety in the rail industry, and continue to work with communities across Canada and groups such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to further support the work of municipal emergency preparedness officials and first responders.

We also continue to strengthen rail safety through other actions. That is why, even before the investigations into this tragedy were completed, the minister directed officials in her department to speed up development and implementation of regulations that reflect recent amendments to the Railway Safety Act. In doing so, there are several questions we need to consider. For example, do our current regimes and options adequately reflect risks of transporting crude oil and other dangerous goods? As we did in developing the world-class tanker safety regime, should we reassess the liability and compensation regime for rail transport to better protect victims, the environment, and taxpayers?

Given the integration of the Canada-U.S. rail network, and in order to improve rail efficiency together, we should work to develop a new continental co-operation on rail safety.

As I noted earlier, we are already doing some of these.

As a first step, the Canadian Transportation Agency is reviewing its insurance assessment criteria and will take actions permitted under existing legislation. As well, Transport Canada will review how much insurance may be required in order to adequately compensate people and pay for cleanups after accidents. From that, we expect to bring forward options to improve this regime and ensure it adequately reflects the risks of transporting crude and other dangerous goods.

Beyond what government can do with its own powers, we must also encourage transportation businesses to encourage a culture of safety in their everyday operations, and the sense among employees that they can all contribute to safe operations. By accomplishing this, these businesses can maintain government's trust and have confidence that we will support their enterprise.

In conclusion, let me make a couple of key points. First, railway safety regulations exist to ensure the safety and protection of the public. If these regulations are not followed, we will not hesitate to act, and if companies do not properly classify the goods they transport, they may be prosecuted under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.

Second, Canada has a robust and safe transportation system, one in which we can have confidence. The facts demonstrate that Canada is pursuing rail safety and that our record has improved in recent years. However, events in Lac-Mégantic remind us that we must remain committed to strengthening rail safety. To do so, we will learn from recent events and work with all stakeholders in rail transportation to ensure the safety of our rail system for Canadians.

We recognize that there is still some work to do, and we remain committed to working with the rail industry, governments, and partners such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to improve the safety of our rail and transportation of dangerous goods systems.

With that, I have a question for the minister. I was wondering if the minister could comment on whether, in light of what I have said in my speech, she is confident in the direction we are taking and whether it will maintain the safety of our transportation and trade system.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comments and the review of all we have accomplished and all we have tried to do with respect to rail safety over the past number of years. Of course, we can always do better. We will always strive to do better, and we will continue to take that path at Transport Canada. That being said, I am satisfied with the reaction we have been receiving to all of these protective directions, emergency orders, and regulations we are putting in place or announcing.

I will take a moment to show that it is not just internally that we should be happy with ourselves. Externally we have heard from people like Claude Dauphin, president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, who stated:

FCM applauds the federal government's response to the tragedy in Lac Mégantic and to the rail safety recommendations that emerged from it.

He went on to say:

The government's commitment to increase the safety of the transportation of dangerous goods, and to require shippers and railways to carry additional insurance, directly respond to calls from FCM's national rail safety working group.

As well, it is important to note that Rebecca Blaikie, who is the NDP president, said on April 23, in response to our comments to the Transportation Safety Board, that she thinks this is a step in the right direction. She said she was glad to see the government taking action.

The member for Brossard—La Prairie also said:

It is a good move. It is a step in the right direction.

He also said that the three-year period is the best thing that can be done.

The mayor of Lac-Mégantic, with whom we have a very good relationship, a respectful one, and it is important for us to consult with her, as she is the centre of so much of what's been happening recently in rail safety, said she was satisfied with the new measures from the federal government.

The chair of the Transportation Safety Board said she was encouraged by our strong response to the board recommendations.

Claude Dauphin also said:

The new safety measures announced today respond directly to our call for concrete action and are another major step forward in improving the safety of Canada's railways and the communities around them.

I also want to thank the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, which commended us for requiring emergency response assistance plans for the shipment of crude oil, ethanol, and other flammable liquids by rail. It is something they asked for. We are continually encouraged by the fact that they will work with us on this matter as we move forward.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Chair, I would ask if the minister could also expand on the regulatory changes she announced last month in response to the TSB's interim findings on the Lac-Mégantic tragedy.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, we acted decisively on April 23 and made our recommendations in response to the Transportation Safety Board.

Today the U.S. department of transport brought in its emergency actions, which mirror ours in some cases. I can say that in comparison with the Canadian position, Canada's actions go further than both of the advisories the U.S. put out today.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to wish the minister a happy birthday, to start.

Is the minister aware that the government has cut almost 20% of the approved check pilots responsible for oversight and air safety since coming to power in 2007?

Does she find that alarming?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, what I can say is what I have reiterated before. In aviation safety, what we see as a decrease is predominantly a result of the transfer of the airport's capital assistance subprogram to reflect a new architecture or a new structure within Transport Canada.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Chair, what I want to say to the minister is that there are 80 fewer check pilots than there were in 2007. That is alarming. It is up to these check pilots to ensure that companies obey safety rules.

How many approved check pilot positions were eliminated at Transport Canada in 2013?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, with respect to the information on aviation, I indicated before that the total number of oversight positions in 2013-14 is 1,778 in civil aviation, which far exceeds the 1,400 that were there in 2012 and 2013.

These are the numbers I have, and as I said before, we have not made any cuts to aviation safety.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to say to the minister that 15 check pilot positions were eliminated last year. In fact, 85% of check pilots believe that air passengers have been exposed to greater risks because of Transport Canada's aviation safety management practices.

Has the minister read or been informed of the results of the recent survey of Transport Canada inspectors?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, with respect to the inspections that are carried out in the aviation sector, the kinds of things that are looked at are regulatory compliance. We do it through oversight activities, including inspections, to which the member is referring.

We do have airline inspectors, who inspect both small airlines and large airlines. They are an important part of our system to ensure that there are safety nets. I mentioned before that it is working because we have seen a decrease in aviation accidents in this country over the past number of years.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to say to the minister that, in this survey, two-thirds of the respondents believe that Transport Canada's safety management system will increase the risk of serious aviation accidents.

What measures has the minister implemented in the wake of the study conducted by her own inspectors?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, as I have indicated before, the change to safety management systems took place a number of years ago. Transport Canada continues to implement those systems, but this is a system that is adopted by the industry, both in air and in rail.

What is important in these systems is making sure that the culture of safety is embedded within the framework. People are thinking about safety as part of their day, as part of their lives at the company, and it has been working. It has been said by the Transportation Safety Board chair that it is the way to go. As I have indicated, we have seen a decrease in aviation accidents in Canada.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the minister this. Why has the Government of Canada cut $7 million from the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority at a time when we should be increasing safety at airports?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, CATSA, like every other organization within the government, went through a strategic review with respect to its back office operations. It did not have an effect on any front-line operations. CATSA continues to operate to ensure security and ensure that passengers are safe at our airports.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Chair, does the government collect revenue from the air travellers security charge on Canadian flights?

Can the minister confirm that 100% of this money is spent on airport security and that it is not paid into the government's general revenues?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, with respect to CATSA, we can see that it is a complex assessment for the funds that are being sought this year, seeking access to $591 million approximately. That goes into three areas, which are pre-board screening, hold-baggage screening, and non-passenger screening.

On restricted area identity cards, CATSA indicates this is the money that it needs in order to ensure that it continues to fulfill the policy obligations that we have put upon it as Transport Canada.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Chair, does the minister believe that fewer flight attendants on airplanes means reduced safety for passengers? I would like a short answer, please.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, the one in 50 standard is accepted by international and U.S. carriers. However, that being said, the rule in Canada right now is one in 40. We are currently in a consultation period in which we will be looking for comments from industry and specifically flight attendants with respect to this issue.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Chair, the question is simple and the answer is, too. Of course reducing the ratio of flight attendants per number of seats will reduce safety.

Does the minister believe that there should be a science-based assessment before we change the ratio of flight attendants to passengers on airplanes?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Chair, whenever we grant an exemption to an existing rule, there is an analysis that has taken place from a safety perspective, and that is what has happened in the past with respect to exemptions for WestJet and Sunwing. Currently we are in a process where we are taking a look at whether this regulation needs to be amended. We are seeking consultation on the matter to ensure we are abiding by what happens with carriers in the United States and in Europe. As well, a ratio that is recognized by ICAO is providing the same level of safety.