Government Operations Committee on May 1st, 2018

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I have a quick question for Ms. Fox.

The mandate of the Transportation Safety Board is to ensure the safety of passengers etc. In October 2016 there was a tragic event in which the former premier of Alberta died. When they climbed into the plane, none of them knew that the pilot was not well trained to fly at night, and the company that was flying those planes was not reviewed for safety purposes.

There was a recommendation. Do you know what they have done with the recommendation? They recommended, number one, auditing companies that fly small planes. They also recommended that a black box be mandatory, because nobody had a black box, and none of these are required to have black boxes. Could you tell me a little about what's been happening since that?

[Kathleen Fox]

Previous investigations done by the Transportation Safety Board looked at the question of safety oversight, safety management on the part of operators, and safety oversight on the part of Transport Canada. In particular that came out of our investigation into an Ornge air ambulance helicopter crash back in 2013. Transport Canada as the regulator has advised the Transportation Safety Board in response to those recommendations that they are still not ready to move forward with requiring all operators to have safety management systems. With respect to oversight, they are definitely amending and updating their surveillance program to have a better combination of inspections for compliance, and audits or assessments of an operator's ability to manage safety.

In the case of the Kelowna accident, in the report we issued last week, we indicated that Transport Canada had not inspected that operator at any time since the operator came into business in 2008—and this was a business aviation operator not a commercial operator—and therefore they were not aware of some of the safety deficiencies in that operation. We issued two things. One was a recommendation to require on-board recorders for business aircraft as well as commercial, and the other was a concern with respect to Transport Canada's oversight of business aviation operators.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I'd love to have that information. There's no training yet, and these pilots fly in the same airspace as the commercial ones, so we'd like to have some more information from them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

I'm sure that Ms. Fox would be able to supply any and all information that she thinks would be helpful to this committee on that issue.

On a personal note, I know I speak for some of my colleagues as well, Jim Prentice, who died in that crash, was a very good friend to many of us. Yes, any answers and suggestions that could prevent a tragedy like this from happening again would be very well received.

Mr. McCauley, for seven minutes.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Welcome back, Ms. Fox.

I want to follow up a bit on Ms. Ratansi's comments. You had commented that Transport Canada had not inspected that company. You note at page 5 of your departmental plan that currently the greatest challenges are in the aviation mode. You further state on page 10 that the percentage of safety advisories on which safety actions were taken is at 50%.

This is not a reflection of your department. It seems a reflection of Transport Canada not fulfilling perhaps some safety requirements for rail, aviation, and pipeline.

You mentioned the last time you were before us that Transport Canada had left quite a few items on your watch-list outstanding for years. It doesn't seem to be getting that much better. Could you expand on some of the issues you talked about when you say that currently the greatest challenges are in the aviation mode?

[Kathleen Fox]

That reference is particular to the issue of our outstanding recommendations. The board has issued almost 600 recommendations since we were created in 1990. The Minister of Transport, when the recommendations are directed to that department, has 90 days to respond. The department always responds.

We assess the response of the department in terms of whether it's going to address the deficiency we've identified, and we assess it until it fully addresses the issue, so we have a number of outstanding recommendations.

Most of the outstanding ones are in the aviation mode, and we did put that issue on our watch-list in 2016 to identify slow progress in addressing our recommendations. Since then, we have seen some significant progress, and we will be announcing in our annual report the progress that's been made on addressing those outstanding recommendations, particularly in aviation.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

On the issue with Mr. Prentice's plane not being inspected, how does something like that happen? Are there possibly, potentially, many other business aviation companies out there that haven't been inspected?

You mentioned Transport Canada had let it go many years, or never even once inspected this company to make sure it was compliant. Are we at risk that there are many others? Do you have confidence Transport Canada is going to follow up with your recommendations on this particular incident?

[Kathleen Fox]

Transport Canada had delegated the responsibility for oversight of the business aviation sector to an industry association back in 2003. Following an investigation that the TSB conducted, and recommendations we made in 2009, Transport Canada decided to take back responsibility for oversight of the business aviation sector.

That was implemented starting in about 2012. Transport Canada was conducting some audit, some inspections of business aviation operators, but this particular operator had not received any such inspections since the time it was created, or it went into operation.

Furthermore, Transport Canada suspended planned surveillance of business aviation operators in 2016, just prior to this accident, and it recently announced that it is reinstating planned surveillance of the business aviation sector going forward in 2018.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'm sorry, was it suspended in 2016?

[Kathleen Fox]

Transport Canada suspended planned surveillance, in other words, pre-announced inspections. It would respond based on risk indicators, including incidents and accidents, and it would conduct follow-up inspections or audits following that.

Since then, most recently in March, Transport Canada briefed the Transportation Safety Board that it is reinstating planned surveillance, in other words, pre-announced surveillance, in addition to reactive surveillance of the business aviation sector.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

One of the criticisms I've heard from investigators is that when we do these pre-announced inspections, it gives the companies time to perhaps sweep a few things under the carpet, or to put lipstick on a pig, for lack of better words, for the inspections.

Do you have any comment on that, about giving companies advanced warning, “Hey, we're coming to inspect you for safety or compliance”?

[Kathleen Fox]

You need a combination of both, announced and unannounced, and Transport Canada has, in the past, done both. We're talking about proactive surveillance, going in and doing an inspection and audit of the company's systems, its compliance with regulations and ability to manage safety, as opposed to reactively, after an incident or an accident, when it may be too late.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

How many companies do you think could be out there similar to the one involved in the Kelowna crash that have not been inspected?

[Kathleen Fox]

We don't have that level of detail. Transport Canada would be in a better position to respond. We know that there are between 600 and 700 business aviation registered operators, and Transport Canada has indicated that they intend to start with proactive, planned surveillance of those companies this year, but I don't have the exact number as to how many they're planning to do.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

On your watch-list for aviation, rail, and pipelines, what are your biggest concerns? A lot of items on the watch-list have been ignored or left outstanding for a long time. What are your biggest concerns?

[Kathleen Fox]

Each item on the watch-list is supported by our investigations' outstanding recommendations. Since we initiated the watch-list in 2010, a number of issues in rail, in marine, and in air have been removed from the watch-list as action has been taken. Other new issues have emerged and have been added, so we currently have three issues in air, one in marine, four in rail, and then two multimodal issues that we are working on.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

You mentioned, I think, in the report and previously when you've been in front of us that some of these watch-list items have been long outstanding. You mentioned three rail, I think, and four air. Are any of these outstanding, or are these all brand new ones that have popped up?

[Kathleen Fox]

On rail, there are four watch-list issues. Some of them are related to the Lac-Mégantic investigation, so they came on the watch-list in 2014 or 2016. Following signal indications has been on the watch-list since 2012. Some of the air ones have been on longer, since 2010, such as the risk of collision on the ground and the risk of runway overrun. These are not easy issues to solve. If they had been, they would have been solved a long time ago, so we are working both with Transport Canada and with industry to try to provide that compelling argument for change so that action will be taken.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

What do you think the biggest roadblock is? You say you work with Transport Canada and industry. Risk for collision on the ground—

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. McCauley, I think we're going to have to cut it off there. Maybe one of your colleagues will pick up on the follow-up questions, but we'll have to move on to Mr. Blaikie for seven minutes, please.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much to all of the witnesses for coming. My questions are going to be focused predominantly on the Transportation Safety Board.

In particular, I want to address the issue of crew fatigue in rail. It's something that has come to my attention a lot. I represent a constituency with the main shops of the CN, and I know a lot of folks who operate trains. They're all concerned about the level of fatigue that exists for them and for their colleagues, particularly in light of some of what they're transporting through Canadian communities. They know they're doing it really tired or, in some cases, are asleep as they're moving these trains through communities, and they regularly report on this. I've been copied on some of that. I have reports from between February 5 and February 23 of 81 CN crews working in excess of 12 hours and up to 13 hours, and 43 crews working in excess of 13 hours, up to sometimes 30 hours, and that's just in a three-week window.

I'm wondering where, on the scale of priorities, crew fatigue is for the Transportation Safety Board and how much of your program activity you foresee being dedicated to crew fatigue in the upcoming year.

[Kathleen Fox]

First of all, Transport Canada, as the regulator, does have regulations with respect to fatigue in a number of modes and certainly in rail and air. From the point of view of the Transportation Safety Board, we always look to see if fatigue may have been a factor in any mode of transport we investigate. When we find it, and when we determine that it did have an impact on crew performance, then we cite it as a finding in our report, either as a causal or as a risk finding.

With respect to crew fatigue in the rail industry, in 2016 when we issued our current watch-list, we did identify crew fatigue in the rail industry as a watch-list issue. We highlighted a number of investigations where we'd reported it as a causal factor, a risk factor, and we are looking to see that Transport Canada work with the railway industry to require fatigue management plans for the railway industry to mitigate the risk of fatigue.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

To the extent that this is a persistent issue, do you think that's, in part, because the TSB doesn't have the power to make binding recommendations?

[Kathleen Fox]

We don't have the power to make binding recommendations. We do make a compelling argument using data from our investigations and our recommendations to convince people of the need for change. This is the model that's been used in all developed countries, including the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.K. We feel it's the best model, having an independent agency that points out safety deficiencies and makes recommendations with a requirement from the regulator and industry to respond to how they're going to address those recommendations. This is certainly something, as part of our outreach activity with industry and other stakeholders, where we have been communicating and conveying the risks associated with fatigue in the rail industry.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

To your knowledge, is Transport Canada doing anything in terms of imposing penalties on railways if their fatigue management is deficient? Not just on paper; that's part of the debate too, that railways can have a good fatigue management policy on paper. Are you of the opinion that Transport Canada is digging into the details enough to know whether those policies are being followed and is then following up with appropriate consequences for railways if they're not?