Evidence of meeting #53 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was review.
A recording is available from Parliament.
May 28th, 2007 / 5:05 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
It's absolutely possible. Anything is possible.
5:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
It's all the more possible because the TSB regulations are different from the American ones. In the United States, accidents are only reported if a certain level of material damage is caused to the equipment, whereas here, in Canada, any type of accident is supposed to be reported. In theory, they should be reporting more incidents than the Americans. But we don't know if that actually happens.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I see that you are a bit frustrated by the fact that your hands are tied as far as imposing penalties is concerned.
Imagine that we are in 2001 and you are in charge of redesigning the entire safety management system which is to be implemented. Would you completely change the approach to how the Canadian public is to be protected?
5:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
When you refer to the approach, are you asking whether we would question the relevance of implementing the SMS?
5:05 p.m.
NDP
5:05 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
I don't think that's where the problem lies. The SMS, in this area as in the field of aviation, is another layer which comes on top of the current regulations. We are not replacing the regulations, we are simply adding another layer. The problem does not lie with the regulations per se, but with the difficulty in enforcing them. To repeat what Mr. Laframboise said, it's hard to impose discipline.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, Mr. Fast has relinquished his time to me. Thank you.
I want to carry on with the line of questioning of my friend Mr. Julian across the way, and that is in relation to accidents and statistics. I did some investigation of this. As most of the committee members are aware, the U.S. has much different reporting standards from Canada. In fact, if you look at them, we have heard time after time in this committee that Canada has the safest system in the world for rail, but when you look at the U.S., their accident rate dropped almost 20% from 1989, from 4.7 accidents per million train miles down to 3.5 in 2006—and that's from 1989 to 2006. In Canada it went from 12.4 to 11.9, or barely a 5% decrease in the same time.
I'm wondering, first, why we have not done the same, and if there have been any studies or initiatives towards having an international standard for reporting of accidents. I know that the U.S. standard is monetary; I think it's $8,700, and it's covered by regulations. Why don't we adopt a similar standard, so we can compare apples with apples and see how our industry—which, quite frankly, for the most part, is a duopoly, with two major train operators—compares? Why don't we adopt an international standard, including Australia and the U.K. and most of Europe and the United States, so we can see apples with apples and actually be able to decide what's going on?
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
It's mainly because, I guess, we don't agree on what that standard could be. There's been discussion, as we do have a committee that looks at harmonization between the two regulatory regimes. And as you mentioned, in the rail industry, the FRA calculates a tab based on a monetary threshold. As long as you're above that threshold, it becomes a reportable accident.
I don't believe the reporting of accidents should be based on a threshold, but rather on the accident or circumstances that led to an accident or incident. That's why, when you compare the ratio in the States with the one here, you're not comparing apples with apples.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
—because even though there's a monetary threshold, the reality is that in the United States they have to report anything that is caused on or near the line—anything at all, or any type of injury, including a stubbed toe, whatever it may be. We don't have to do that here in Canada; it has to actually be a serious injury. So it could actually be argued that the contrary should be true, that the United States should have a much higher threshold.
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
There are two things: train accidents and personal injuries. For personal injuries, in the States they have a different regime from us; everything requiring more than first aid treatment becomes reportable, and they have guidelines explaining what the first treatment is. In Canada, it's whatever's considered a disabling injury, which is lost time, modified duty, loss of a limb, fatalities, and things like that.
So I would argue that in terms of personal injuries, when you compare both regimes, they are probably quite similar—although you may get a few more reportable injuries in the States, because they calculate more than the first aid treatment.
A train accident is a different thing: it's a monetary threshold.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm reading from the federal railroad administration regulations, title 49, part 225 of the code, and it says that other incidents would be any death, injury or occupational illness--occupational illness is a pretty wide category today, with litigation--of a railroad employee that is not the result of a train accident or a highway-rail incident. It includes just about anything.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Can you provide to the chair and to the committee any ongoing studies or just a mandate, some information we can see that would make sense? Right now it doesn't make sense, not to me and I don't think to any other member around the table, and most Canadians would disagree that we should have a separate reporting system from the U.S. or other major countries.
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
As I said, personal injury covers everything that happens on the railroad, regardless of whether you're on a train or not. If you're working in a shop and you get injured, it's reportable.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
You're going up to the lunch room, you trip on the stairs, it becomes a reportable injury. It's counted.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I would appreciate any information you can give us, because that's not what the Internet says and that's not my information. So I'd really appreciate that.
Thank you.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Mr. Fast, do you want to follow up? You have two and a half minutes.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I was a little disappointed to hear all of the blame being placed at the feet of our officials, because ultimately it's the regulatory and statutory framework that hamstrings your ability to do what you believe needs to be done. In fact, I go back to Mr. Grégoire's testimony, and just to quote one sentence, he states that “it has become apparent that the current regulatory framework may not provide the full set of tools to effectively deal with them”--referring to accidents.
My concern is this: is it even possible to prevent all rail accidents? And a follow-up question would be, is it possible, at the very least, to avoid and prevent fatalities in an absolute way, especially those arising out of derailments; and is there a safety standard, whether an American standard or a Canadian standard or a provincial standard like we have in British Columbia, that can be beefed up enough so that we don't have the ongoing stories of people losing their lives because of derailments?
5:15 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
I will start, and Luc will complete.
Your first question is whether it is possible to eliminate all accidents. No, it's not possible to do that in any of the modes that we supervise. It's not possible in aviation, on the roads, in the water, or on the rail.
Are there standards, or best practices, if you want? That's done by sharing best practices across different countries. We like to think we have pretty good standards here in Canada. In fact, before 2002 when the accidents started to increase year after year until they peaked in 2005, we had a very good story to tell in rail, but the situation degraded somewhat. Unlike aviation--and that will address also your previous question--and marine, where we have international bodies under the UN--ICAO for aviation and IMO for marine--there are no ways to share best practices on a formal basis.
We have a similar situation on the road, I should add, because for the roads there isn't a similar body either. There is talk about creating one.
Maybe Luc can respond further.