Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 5th, 2020

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Keenan, broadly speaking, maybe you could incorporate the changing regulations coming from the new Canada Energy Regulator that are incorporating the United Nations goals. How does Transport Canada work with the broader scopes with which we're now complying?

[Michael Keenan]

That's a great question. In general, there are probably three pathways that we're incorporating international standards into our program on dangerous goods, whether those standards come from the UN sustainable development goals or.... The UN has a system, for example, for categorizing dangerous goods and their treatment. We're incorporating that. ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, has standards for dangerous goods on planes. One great example is the listing of batteries, and we have a whole new set of standards for that.

We're incorporating a lot of them directly from international bodies. We also work with the Canada Energy Regulator, because there's a lot, for example, on the shipments of oil by tankers, like a project that has a pipeline in a tank, so there's an integrated approach there as well.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I'm looking at your budget which has risen from $13.9 million in 2011-12, and in fiscal year 2018-19, it went up to $36.2 million, so resources are expanding through the Government of Canada. You mentioned increased audits and increased staff, but you also said something about digital fees. In the audit, there were some milestones set up for this fall. It looks like they're pushed back to the spring of 2021. Data is everything.

Could you comment on how these resources, which you've been given from the government, are being for data improvement?

[Michael Keenan]

I'll comment generally, and I may invite a supplementary response from my colleague, Mr. Turcotte.

We are doing exactly that. We're building a system where inspectors use hand-held devices to enter data directly. We're putting in more sophisticated digital databases to escape the kinds of problems that the CESD found with some of the data quality. If there were three infractions under the same section of the TDG reg, it would only be reported once.

We're working to fix all of that to get a continuous cycle of better data, both from our inspections and other sources, in order to have a risk-based inspection plan. We would then have frictionless inputting of data from front-line inspectors. The other part of the equation is that we've had a more than tripling in the number of front-line inspectors than the TDG warrants. There's more data, better data, and a better plan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Mr. Longfield, your time is up.

We will now move to Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Good morning, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Keenan and Ms. De Silva. Thank you for your presentations, which were very interesting.

I agree with what my colleague Mr. Berthold said. We are all familiar with the Lac-Mégantic tragedy seven years ago. It left very painful marks on everyone. It's important that we explore potential solutions and areas in need of improvement so we can prevent this kind of tragedy from ever happening again.

My first question is for the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Mr. Hayes.

I looked at your report. Based on what we can see on railway inspections, is it possible to require railway safety inspectors to apply enforcement measures? Transport Canada standards do not really do enough. As an Officer of Parliament, can you order reform in that respect?

[Andrew Hayes]

Thank you.

I have no powers in that area. It is a policy issue that the department or perhaps Parliament could address.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you.

With respect to Transport Canada, we were told that the number of railway inspectors has increased, but that does not appear to be enough.

Do you have more information about it? Has an action plan been announced?

[Andrew Hayes]

Is that question for me or the deputy minister?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

On your end at the Office of the Commissioner, has anything come up about this?

[Andrew Hayes]

It is my understanding that the department has increased its staff and resources to address the issues identified in 2011.

For our part, we have made similar recommendations in this report. The issues remain, and I believe that the department could respond with an action plan.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hayes.

Mr. Keenan, page 4 of your report states, with respect to Transport Canada's oversight, that the number of oversight inspectors employed by the transportation of dangerous goods program has quadrupled from 30 to over 127.

What year does that refer to, Mr. Keenan? No date is given for that.

[Michael Keenan]

They've quadrupled from 2012 to 2020. We went from 30 to 130 inspectors under the program for the transportation of dangerous goods, which covers all modes the federal government inspects. On rail safety over this period, we went from 107 inspectors to 152.

In addition to increasing the number of inspectors and inspections, we used data to develop risk-based inspection plans to better target those inspections. As per the recommendations from the CESD, we're working to improve the data quality in that targeting.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I want to make sure I understand, Mr. Keenan. Are these inspectors specifically assigned to the transportation of dangerous goods program?

I have here a QMI Agency article from July 2013, following the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. At that time, Transport Canada stated that it had 101 railway inspectors and that the number had not changed in the previous six years.

However, according to you, the number of inspectors rose from 30 to 130 between 2012 and 2020. So it quadrupled. I am trying to understand, because when I do the math, from 2013 to 2020, only four new inspectors would have been brought in per year, on average.

[Michael Keenan]

That's a very good question. Thank you for the opportunity to be more precise on this issue.

At Transport Canada there are two different major programs of inspection: the transportation of dangerous goods, which includes rail, but also includes marine and air and, through provincial authorities, road, and that implements the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act; and we have a separate program of rail safety inspectors who implement the Rail Safety Act.

In the case of the transportation of dangerous goods, the number of inspectors has increased from 30 to 130, which is more than a quadrupling of their number.

I think the statistic you're referring to probably relates to rail safety inspectors. In the statistics I'm looking at, that number increased from 107 in 2012 to 152.

The number of rail safety inspectors went up by about 50% and the number of dangerous goods inspectors went up by over 300%.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much, Mr. Keenan.

I believe Mr. Blanchette-Joncas' time is up.

We will now move to Mr. Green for six minutes.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm very proud to welcome to our committee Taylor Bachrach, the NDP member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who will take this first section.

Taylor, the floors is yours, through the chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Green and Madam Chair.

I really appreciated hearing the presentations from our witnesses and I'd like to thank them for being here today.

By way of introduction, the region that I represent, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, comprises about the northwest quarter of British Columbia. It includes CN Rail's main line, which runs through a number of communities, including such communities as Fraser Lake, Burns Lake, Houston, Smithers, Hazelton, Terrace and Prince Rupert. A large volume of dangerous goods is transported along that main line, and there are several projects that would increase the volume of those dangerous goods. This situation makes the report we have heard about today an issue of such great concern for people in the riding I represent.

The Alta Gas project is a propane terminal in Prince Rupert with 60 cars per days currently servicing the project. The Pembina terminal is just about to be opened and will bring another 28 cars per day, and the Vopak project, which is currently in assessment, will result in the movement of as many as 240 railcars per day.

Many of the communities along CN's main line are protected by volunteer fire departments, and their mayors have expressed deep concerns over the years about the transport of dangerous goods and their ability to respond to emergencies.

I'm reading from this report. I'll read a couple of the passages that stood out to me from Mr. Hayes' presentation:We found that the department still had not followed up to ensure that companies addressed the violations identified through inspections. For example, the department had not verified that companies took corrective action on 30% of the violations we looked at.

Further: In other words, at the time of our audit, Transport Canada did not have a clear picture of the community of companies it regulated or of the compliance status.

This is of grave concern to people in our region.

My question is for Mr. Keenan. You mentioned that you plan to address these shortcomings over the next two years. I'm wondering what you would say to the mayors, to the volunteer fire departments and their fire chiefs, and most importantly to the residents who live along that rail line in northwest B.C. Should they have to wait two years to have these shortcomings addressed?

[Michael Keenan]

That's a very good question.

Madam Chair, as the member has indicated, that is a busy rail line through those communities. The answer is no, they shouldn't have to wait for two years. The two years indicates when we think we'll be done implementing fully all five recommendations.

Concerning the one the member raised with respect to our following up on compliance on the majority but not all of our findings and violations and issues, let me say that we're moving now. The CESD noted a 30% rate of our not following up; we've brought that figure down since the CESD found that. We believe we're almost at zero and we're in the process of putting in place a tool for inspectors in early 2021 that will require that it go to zero, because they won't be able to close a file until they've verified that there is 100% follow-up on compliance.

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

Thank you, Mr. Keenan.

If I follow correctly, these shortcomings have been identified since 2011, and it has taken until now to get to the point that some of them have been addressed but not yet all of them.

I'm wondering why it took so long, when communities have been speaking out about rail safety and the risk of dangerous goods for all these years, and yet we have this very recent report showing some major shortcomings in 30% of the violations.

[Michael Keenan]

With respect to that point, if you go back to the 2011 audit by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, there were a number of major issues, all of which Transport Canada has moved on. We've made dramatic improvements in the program of transportation of dangerous goods since that time.

For example, back then we didn't actually have an inspection plan and we only had 30 inspectors. We built a risk-based inspection plan. We're targeting the inspections to where there is risk, and we're executing almost triple the number of inspections. We've made dramatic improvements year after year since the audit. There are some areas in which we have more work to do.

We have, then, gotten the number of inspections up and we have an inspection plan. We don't have 100% follow-up on inspections and we're taking action now to get us to that 100% follow-up.

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

Thank you, Mr. Keenan.

Over the years, as the mayor of Smithers, I met several times with the CN and representatives of the federal government. They always assured us that the response plans in the case of a major industrial fire along the rail line were bulletproof. These were excellent plans that were going to protect communities, yet in this report we find that the department had not given final approval to many emergency response assistance plans.

Why is that? Why did those plans languish in draft form for so many years?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

There's time for just a very short answer, Mr. Keenan.

[Michael Keenan]

Sure. I will be brief, Madam Chair.

The report correctly notes that we have had to renew interim plans. There are two reasons. One is that a number of them were outstanding in terms of having a final definition of the standard for firefighting of flammable liquids. We're now bringing that to close. Then number of them required physical inspection.

We had a large backlog of interim plans that hadn't been finalized. We're working that backlog down. We are on our way to get it to zero.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly Block]

Thank you very much, Mr. Keenan.