Public Accounts Committee on May 6th, 2021

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

How I look at it is that the reason the increased standards are being put in place is that there's increased risk, and Transport Canada knew there was going to be increased risk because these projects were on the books for some number of years. Why not require the rail company to do the risk assessment prior to the volumes increasing on the rails?

We're doing the assessment process while the trains are rolling. Why not do it beforehand?

[Michael Keenan]

To go back to my previous answer, there have been multiple risk assessments and multiple actions taken to strengthen the safety standard around key trains and key routes, including high-risk key trains like the ones you're describing. We're not just starting. There have been major changes and major strengthenings of the systems and risk assessments related to that. As traffic patterns change, there's an ongoing requirement for new risk assessments. It's not a one-off; there's a stream of these. There is one that CN is due to get to us, I think, this month.

Mike, could you elaborate on the timing of the next risk assessment?

[Michael DeJong]

Thank you for the question.

We actually evaluate the situations every three years. It's on a cyclical basis. The deadline for the risk assessment is later this May. That will inform Transport Canada on how CN has identified and accounted for the risks and what remedial measures are in place.

Even from a proactive perspective, under those key trains and key roads rules there are reduced speed limits imposed on trains travelling through this area, as well as the requirements for increased track inspections in order to mitigate risks.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm going to move along to my next question.

Ms. Hogan, earlier Mr. Keenan said that “Transport Canada took significant action on all of the recommendations” in the Auditor General's 2013 report. Is that consistent with what you found?

[Karen Hogan]

I don't know if I would use the same qualifier. I think “significant” is a word that everyone measures in a different way. We definitely saw that they took action. There was an increase in the number of inspections. There was more rigorous follow-up on corrective actions, as we talked about earlier. In our sample, in 92% of the case files we looked at there was a follow-up on corrective actions, and they had been taken.

We saw an increase in risk-based planning about oversight activities. What's missing now is making those linkages of collecting data and using that data to inform future risk-based information. More importantly, what we think is one of the key fundamental gaps.... There are actually two. One is measuring the effectiveness of the safety management systems of the rail companies. Then it's to make sure of the overall effectiveness of all of this increase in activity and to make sure it's directed in the right places and having an impact on rail safety overall.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you.

I'll go back to Mr. Keenan.

Mr. Keenan, this question also relates to the timing of Transport Canada's interventions. In February 2019, as we all know, CP had a grain train parked on a hill near Field, B.C., without the handbrakes applied. It took off, and the incident killed three men. Two years later, in February 2021—just a few months ago—essentially the same incident happened. CP parked another grain train in the same location, and Transport Canada found that there was an immediate threat of another fatal accident. When it was asked, CP said that it didn't apply the handbrakes because the regulations don't require it to. Then, after that second incident, Transport Canada stepped in with a special order and essentially said that you're not allowed to park trains unattended, I believe, in that geographical area.

Now, why didn't Transport Canada step in after the first incident in February 2019 and put that protective order in place?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

I'm sorry. We are well over time by almost a minute. I will have to move on—

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thanks, Madam Chair. Sorry for going over.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

—to our next round of questions, which is a five-minute round.

Mr. Lawrence is next.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

My question is almost the same as Mr. Bachrach's, so I'll give a small preamble, but you can probably answer, Mr. Keenan, the question from Mr. Bachrach and answer mine.

Because of the importance of this issue for Quebec, I'll try to ask my question in French. I apologize in advance to the interpreters.

Due process is absolutely important, but so is using common sense, as Mr. Bachrach says. For example, should you wait until the risk assessment process is complete to intervene, or should you act immediately and provide the first available information to avoid multi-car accidents?

[Michael Keenan]

Thank you for the question.

My answer will be threefold.

First, the rail tragedy in Field, British Columbia, is still under investigation by the RCMP.

Immediately after the Field incident, there was a train with a crew nearby and with the emergency brakes on, and it started to roll. Transport Canada, within a very short period of time—I can't remember, but Mike could say; it was probably like hours and days—put in place an additional requirement on the train securement rules, essentially requiring.... It added a very clear standard for handbrakes on unattended trains at grade, even if they are unpowered.

I think the member is right. There was an incident recently of a train in a similar area that didn't have the handbrakes applied. It turns out that the principle of the rule that we put in place immediately after Field was clear: If the train is unattended, you have to put on the handbrakes according to a formula based on the number of cars and the grade. That wasn't done.

There was, I would say, a difference of perspective as to whether or not the train was unattended. The clarification of the rules was not to say that unattended trains have to be secured; that was established across Canada in a very unambiguous way immediately after Field. Rather, it was a clarification that in Transport Canada's view, these conditions make for an unattended train, and in those conditions, you have to put on the handbrakes according to the formula.

Mike, do you want to elaborate on that? This is a specific incident that we've taken quite seriously and that I know you've been following closely.

[Michael DeJong]

Absolutely. The deputy minister is correct. Immediately after the initial incident, Transport Canada took action with the requirements for the application of handbrakes on mountain grades. However, after the subsequent incident, there was an order issued immediately to ensure that unattended trains would be properly secured.

To add further layers of protection on this, two additional ministerial orders were issued. One was with respect to requiring railways to prevent the accidental release of air brakes, and the second was an order to improve the performance standards for roll-away protection. These measures are intended to prevent these very serious incidents from recurring.

I would also note that inspection activities are happening with respect to the Laggan subdivision, and an investigation is under way.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you for that.

I'm going to make a brief comment and then I'll give the floor to Mr. Berthold.

I'm concerned. The Auditor General talked about this on a bigger scale. The world is going faster. I don't know that we have enough time anymore for analysis paralysis. Technology is changing quickly; we need to shift quickly and respond quickly. The regulatory response—I get it—is important, but we need to accelerate.

That's my comment.

Mr. Berthold, the floor is yours, my friend.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Mr. Berthold, you have 30 seconds.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I will ask my colleagues to give me 30 seconds more, if they agree, because I have a very important question that comes out of the comments from the Auditor General just minutes ago.

Mr. Keenan, the Auditor General gave us a bit of a lecture, probably without realizing it, when she suggested that parliamentary committees should follow up on their own recommendations to Transport Canada over the years. I do see in the Auditor General's report that various committee reports have made several recommendations, one of which called for a review of the Railway Safety Act by 2018. Now you’re planning it for next year.

Would it be possible for you to review all of these reports and inform the committee of the progress of each of the recommendations made to you by parliamentarians since 2013? That way, we would know what you've done to address the recommendations of parliamentarians.

I'm not asking you to provide me with these details today. I'd like to receive them in the next 20 or 30 days.

[Michael Keenan]

Yes, we'd be pleased to provide this information to the committee.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much.

We will now move on to Mr. Fergus for five minutes.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to come back to a question that was asked by my colleague Mr. Blois at the start of the meeting. First, though, I have a comment on what Mr. Berthold said.

When the Standing Committee on Public Accounts receives a very positive report from the Auditor General because the department has acted on past recommendations, we make very positive comments. Our meeting last Tuesday is a good example. However, when the Auditor General presents a report indicating that past recommendations have not been implemented, we get a little more difficult. I find that to be the case today.

Mr. Blois asked a question to which he was unable to get an answer. It concerned paragraphs 5.21 and 5.48 of the report, in which it was noted that Transport Canada needs to more effective evaluate whether its oversight activities are leading to better rail safety outcomes.

Mr. Keenan, you acknowledged that the concept of safety involves many factors. We agree on that. Nevertheless, I would like to know how much work is planned to ensure that the measures in place improve the safety of our rail system. What safety standards will you look at to assess whether there has been an improvement?

[Michael Keenan]

There are several parts to the question from the honourable member.

I don't want to overly interpret the Auditor General, but she's recognized the progress we have made and pointed out the significant gaps and things we have to do.

On the question of the activities that lead to better security outcomes, we have made a lot of progress and done a lot of work to use information and data from multiple sources to guide actions, including oversight, including regulatory standards and inspections and audits to improve security outcomes, and we think we've made progress there.

About 10 minutes ago the Auditor General, I think, clearly and articulately stated the challenge before us and where we have more work to do, based on her recommendations of mapping and figuring out in an analytical way the relationship among specific aspects of the SMS program and safety outcomes, but, more importantly, everything we're doing. It goes back to this point that where we're being criticized and challenged, we're also being guided in key steps we can take to create a higher-performing safety system, and we are committed to deliver actions that follow up and respond to her recommendations in a timely manner.

We have shared details of the action plan with the committee. We're trying to establish clear time bounds for specific activities. We believe by the end of 2021, we will have made some significant progress. We will not be done, because the challenge the Auditor General has put before us will take us a while to meet completely, but we think we can make significant progress in beginning to assess effectiveness, even by the end of this coming year.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Given what you're already planning to do this year, when do you think you'll be finished implementing this set of recommendations from the Auditor General? Will it be 2022 or 2023? Can you give us a date?

[Michael Keenan]

That's a very good question that brings some transparency to this commitment of time.

To answer the member's question, I'll turn to Mr. DeJong to describe very briefly what we are committing to do this year versus next year.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

May we have a very brief response?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

As the chair pointed out, I don't have a lot of time left, so can you just tell me when you think you'll have implemented all of the Auditor General's recommendations? For example, do you think it will be done by 2022, 2023 or 2024?

[Michael Keenan]

We will have significant steps taken later this year. For example, we're going to—