Government Operations Committee on Feb. 25th, 2019

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Would you like to see that in each department's departmental plan, a strict target on protecting public servants from their employers' retribution?

[Joe Friday]

I don't know if it could be set as a specific numerical target, but I do think there are ways through the departmental planning and results process to support increased awareness and clear reporting on the activities under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act within individual departments. I would be very supportive of that.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Blaikie, you have seven minutes.

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

Mr. Friday, if it's possible and, again, without overstepping any boundaries or giving anything away, I'm curious.... If the type of legislative changes you have suggested ought to happen don't happen, in what way does that inhibit people coming forward? What is the current legal regime getting in the way of, and what do you think is possible if those changes are made?

[Joe Friday]

I think the changes I recommended and the changes that came from this committee's hard and long work looking at the legislation were aimed both at removing barriers to coming forward, for example, removing the requirement that there be a good faith test, making it easier to report up through the chain of command within an organization, but also I suppose—I don't want to use the word “incentives”, but—providing clear evidence that peoples' needs would be addressed.

For example, for a victim of reprisal right now, there's a cap of $10,000 for pain and suffering should the public service disclosure tribunal, which is made up of Federal Court judges, make a finding of reprisal. I would like to see that upped. I would like to see the tribunal be able to reimburse legal fees, for example.

I think it's a combination of incentives, plus actively removing barriers to coming forward. I think together the numerous recommendations that were made for amendment really work in a cohesive and organic fashion to move the entire system, internal and external, forward.

We're entering the second generation, if I could put it that way, of this legislation, and I think the time is right to do so.

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

I have a technical question for you. It came up in our last panel. Is the amount you're requesting in the interim estimates for the 2019-20 fiscal year a percentage of last year's spending, or is that a percentage of the spending you're projecting for next year?

[Joe Friday]

Now I turn to my CFO, the man with the calculator.

[Éric Trottier, Manager, Financial Services, and Chief Financial Officer, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner]

It's a percentage: three-twelfths of the 2019-20 expected main estimates.

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

It's a portion of what you're expecting to spend in 2019-20.

[Éric Trottier]

That's right.

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

It's not a percentage of last year's spending.

[Éric Trottier]

No.

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

Would that be true for the Transportation Safety Board as well?

[Kathleen Fox, Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board]

That's correct.

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

Okay, thank you.

Ms. Fox, I live in a rail community and I know a lot of folks who drive trains and are concerned about operations on Canada's major railways.

I'm just wondering if you can speak to what you think remains to be done from the point of view of the TSB to promote real rail safety in our communities, and if you could delineate that for us. I think there's a lot of confusion sometimes between what Transport Canada does and what the TSB does, to the extent that we talk about more on-site inspection. What can't TSB do that you think needs to be done to achieve a reassuring level of safety with respect to rail transport in Canada?

[Kathleen Fox]

Perhaps I can start by clarifying the differences in the roles. Transport Canada is the regulator. It sets the regulations for railway operations in the country. For example, railway companies are required to have a railway operating certificate and a safety management system. It's up to Transport Canada to oversee that and make sure the railways are acting in accordance with the regulations, with the rules that have been set.

The Transportation Safety Board's role is to investigate reported accidents and incidents to identify safety deficiencies, causal and contributing factors and, where appropriate, make recommendations on things that can be done to improve rail safety. We are not a regulator in that sense nor an overseer. We're responding to occurrences.

With respect to railway safety, a lot of things have improved since the Lac-Mégantic tragedy in 2013—for example, the introduction of the railway operating certificate; the introduction of new, more explicit regulations for safety management systems and the introduction of fines. Those are all changes that Transport Canada has introduced. As a result of our recommendations coming out of Lac-Mégantic, there have been a number of improvements, for example, in tank-car standards for transportation of flammable liquids, notably crude oil; for the introduction of emergency response assistance plans and added rules to reduce the risk of runaway or uncontrolled movements. They've increased the frequency and the depth of audits and inspections of railway, so a lot's been done.

But there is still a lot to be done. That's reflected in our outstanding recommendations, as well as in our watch-list issue, which includes, among other things, following signal indications, and some sort of automatic train control system to slow down or stop the train if the crew doesn't respond appropriately. Fatigue in rail is on our watch-list, as well as safety management and oversight. As well, there's slow progress on addressing some outstanding TSB recommendations, so a lot of progress has been made, but a lot more can be done to further improve the safety of Canada's railways.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Mr. Blaikie, you've got about 30 seconds.

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

Quickly, with respect to fatigue as one example, do you think it's adequate just to change the framework within the SMS system and have Transport Canada review those written policies, or do you think it's important that Transport Canada have people in the field investigating what's happening on the trains?

[Kathleen Fox]

With respect to fatigue—and I'm conscious of the shortage of time—it's about the railways having fatigue management plans that address hours of rest and hours of duty. It's a shared responsibility among the railway companies, the unions and the employees, under the oversight of Transport Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Madam Ratansi.

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

Thank you for being here.

I was just looking at the 2017 whistle-blower study that we did. You appeared before the committee and presented your 16 recommendations, and then the committee did its unanimous report.

I'm just trying to get my head around the following statement: “advocate for legislative changes that we proposed to improve the Act, despite the government's decision”. Can you explain what you mean and how would you do it technically?

[Joe Friday]

I believe the statement refers to the fact that proposals were made for legislative change, but no change was actually made. There have been no changes to the act.

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

You have not had any conversation with the minister or with any of the people who do the legislation?

[Joe Friday]

It's up to the government to change the legislation. I wish I had the power to do so, but—