Transport Committee on April 1st, 2008

[Luc Bourdon]

As far as the notices and orders are concerned, we have no intention of adding a vetting process by anyone to what the inspectors are doing. But through our quality process we've been ensuring that if the notices and orders apply nationally, they have to be written so they apply nationally, and not to the particular location where the incident or whatever occurred. It's still an immediate threat, and an immediate threat needs to be addressed on the spot. So that won't change.

On our role as inspectors versus auditors, you asked what we have done. When we started to train our people to be auditors after that was implemented in the act, nothing existed out there that was tailor-made for the railway. So we hired a consulting firm that was good at auditing, and we've trained our people to be either auditors or lead auditors.

When I said we had a certain resistance to change, people sometimes had a hard time relating what they were being taught to the rail industry. We're currently retraining all of our people. Now we have someone with our experience who has been able to map what they have with the railway industry. When Mr. Watson asked me why we felt we were probably between three and four, we're seeing now, with everybody who is being trained, that people are understanding a lot more about SMS and the audit procedures than they did before.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Monsieur Bachand has generously donated his time to Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you.

I realize that you are comparing the air and rail sectors, but the danger in so far as the rail sector is concerned is that you are dealing with hundreds of kilometres of rail and hundreds of acres of railway yards. The following is noted with respect to railway yard spills on page 148 of the report:

We have perceived a gap between federal authorities in monitoring leakages and spills of dangerous goods and environmentally hazardous goods in railway yards. In most cases, Environment Canada expects the transportation regulator to intercede, since it is related to train operations, while the Transport Canada railway safety inspector is not sufficiently trained or knowledgeable to assess site contamination.

That means that hundreds of railway yards located within our city limits—all railway yard sites are located within city limits because they often pre-date urban development—are contaminated to some degree. The report was released in November 2007. It is not clear who is responsible for what exactly. Environment Canada maintains that Transport Canada is responsible, while Transport Canada inspectors are not sufficiently trained to assess whether or not a site is contaminated.

That is the current state of affairs in the rail sector. I am not happy to have to call for more inspections. Certainly I want the situation to be monitored, but I also want qualified people to check to ensure that railway yard sites are not contaminated.

What are we doing? What are you doing? You have established an Advisory Council on Railway Safety to address the contamination problem. That is all well and good, but how are you dealing with the problem of contaminated railway yards?

[Marc Grégoire]

First of all, Mr. Laframboise, I must go back to what you initially said, namely that there are thousands of kilometres of track. I would say that there are tens of thousands of kilometres of track. There are hundreds of railway yards across the country. That is another reason for having railway companies embrace and implement the SMS concept.

Railway companies have tens of thousands of employees. Mr. Masse expressed his satisfaction at seeing unions and employees involved in this initiative. As I see it, it would be impossible to enhance safety in any significant way without having all of these individuals get involved in the process. How can we do that? By implementing safety management systems.

We will never have enough resources in terms of inspectors. According to your figures, we should have one inspector per railway yard, one inspector per train, and one inspector for 200 or 1,000 kilometres of track. That will never happen. So then, it is really important to implement safety management systems.

Very few people in my group, Safety and Security, either here in Ottawa or in the regions, are experts in soil contamination. Luc's employees, whether here or in the regions, are primarily experts in railway safety. The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Directorate is responsible for contamination problems. This group steps in when train derailments or spills of hazardous materials occur. However, Transport Canada has not focussed a great deal of energy in the past on railway yards.

You mentioned the Advisory Council. However, I would like to talk about something else I mentioned at the start of my presentation. We have established a Railway Safety Act Review Panel which is co-chaired by Transport Canada and the RAC. Under the auspices of this Panel, a series of working groups will be struck, including one to be called Proximity, Operations, Environment and Technology. The recommendations that you alluded to will be examined by this working group which will then advise the minister as to the best way to implement them. I cannot tell you right here and now what we will be doing. We don't have all of the details yet.

Would you like to add something to that, Luc?

[Luc Bourdon]

I would like to say to Mr. Laframboise that our mandate consists of ensuring the integrity and safety of railcars. Transshipment operations are not the responsibility of Rail Safety. If a spill was to occur, depending on the type of product and the quantity involved, as a rule, Environment Canada or our Transportation of Dangerous Goods Directorate would step in to handle the situation. Historically, Rail Safety has never been involved in cases of soil contamination.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I wasn't implying that we needed to have one inspector for each railway yard. However, we read that there should be some interrelation and training. Environment Canada believes that you should be monitoring these operations, whereas you maintain that this area is the responsibility of Environment Canada or the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Directorate. The bottom line is that people lack sufficient knowledge to determine if sites are contaminated.

Let me say again that these railway yards are located in the heart of our cities. It is fine with me if you want to strike some committees, but contamination on this scale shouldn't be happening in this environmental age. Maybe 10, 15 or 20 years ago, incidents like this were more commonplace, but by November 2007, the problem should have been resolved. We need competent people to investigate these incidents.

You stated that your committee will be making some recommendations. That's all well and good, except that certain things can no longer be allowed to happen.

[Marc Grégoire]

But we are not the ones who will be cleaning up the sites. Transport Canada must arrange for the sites that it owns to be cleaned up. That goes for airports, harbours...

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

I'm not saying that you should be the ones to do it, except that we're dealing with private property. Someone has to tell the company responsible for the spill that it must also clean up the site.

In the case of air transport, the sky is the route, whereas for rail transport, we have tracks, railway yards and so forth. People like yourself must demand that cleanup operations be carried out. Sites are contaminated and companies are shirking their responsibilities. Someone needs to tell them to carry out cleanup operations.

[Marc Grégoire]

We will discuss that with our colleagues at Environment Canada. It is not clear that Transport Canada can impose this requirement in the case of privately owned land. We will discuss this matter further and come back to it later, not in several weeks time though, but rather in a few months' time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for having the witnesses here.

[Marc Grégoire]

It looks like we have a standing offer to come here.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Well, it's good and quite informative, and we're moving along.

I want to go into a comment you made on the last page of your presentation: “It's important to point out that the panel's recommendations do not negate Transport Canada's regulatory oversight program”. Is there a concern by some body or group that in fact the program would get negated?

[Luc Bourdon]

No, not that I know of.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I was wondering if that was just a statement, or was it...?

[Luc Bourdon]

I guess it's a statement, yes.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Oh, okay.

One of the things that has come to me, and I think the words have been well used, is that we need a “cultural change” in the safety management system. It's actually become a regime that needs to be changed to implement such a cultural change, I believe. You talked about it being a journey, and I can't disagree with that. As we look at changing a number of significant things, with the greatest number of employees we are dealing with here, I think it always is a journey, and sometimes generational things have to be turned over before these cultural changes will happen.

One of the things you talked about was a resistance to change--not an objection, but sometimes a resistance to change. I guess it's a bit in our human nature to sometimes get our backs up against change. In terms of bringing the inspections or audits together under one inspection auditor, or safety officer, I think it's called, what sort of education and training is there? What has the approach been to them, so there would be a higher level of acceptance of that responsibility?

I think you mentioned getting away from the tire-kicking part we've been accustomed to, and actually making sure—as in everything else we have to do now—that it is documented and shown, so that there's an audit portion to that inspection.

Can you just help me a little bit? How are you working towards that?

[Luc Bourdon]

One of the things we've noticed when implementing SMS is there's a tendency to resist change. I guess we're all railroaders by trade, so whether you're with the regulator or the railway, you're probably from the same blood and you take the same way. That's probably why there was resistance to change in the industry, as well as within Transport Canada.

What we're doing now is that we've recognized that, as part of an audit, we need people who are technically very strong, and also people who understand processes. What we're trying to do now is to put teams together that have all of those skills. So we may have a team leader who.... Most of our team leaders are not railroaders by trade, but people who really understand audit principles and the processes that are in place within the rail industry, or within any other rail industry. They're the ones who are responsible to map the audit, to work with the auditor and to assign people on the team exactly what they can best handle, based on the skills of the people on the team.

That's why we're seeing a shift right now, whereas before we probably believed that it was about railroads and that it should only be done by people who understood the rail industry. So now we're hiring people with different types of skills in order to be able to match the direction in which we're going, as well as in the training that we provide. As I said, our first round of training was brand-new. There was nothing out there that had a railway flavour to really tailor-make that to our industry. Now we're in the second round of training, and everybody understands a lot better what we're trying to do.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I think you've actually tagged that, because now that you're in a position where there are retirees, you're able to hire for a new regime or a new culture. But for a few years there will be a number of people who will not have that expertise or training, or the background to carry out maybe what you're asking them to do. I'm wondering what you're doing to help move them along so that they can be part of that team, and feel integrated, actually. That's the important part, that they feel integrated, and not necessarily be disciplined, that this is what you have to do. How do you bring them along to feel that, so they don't become a hindrance and in fact become a great part of a successful team?

[Luc Bourdon]

As I said, through training. In the second round of training we're really seeing an improvement in the culture with respect to SMS within Transport Canada. But as well, as I said, we're trying to find and use the people for what they're best at.

For instance, in every part of an audit you have to analyze processes that are in place, and procedures and policy, but you also need to have a component of sampling. You have to make sure that what you found in all the paperwork that was provided is actually being translated into concrete action on the ground. So people who are stronger on the technical side will be used to doing that sampling. They will be out there to assist the auditor by looking to see that on the ground everything corresponds with what we've been told and what we've found throughout the system, that there's a correlation between what we are being told, what we are being shown, and what is really applied on the ground.

So we use our people for what they are best at.

[Marc Grégoire]

I'd like to add two things to that, if you'll allow me.

First of all, we like our employees, so we don't want to kick people out because they don't have the skills. This is not our philosophy at all. We'll train them. We'll give them more training if needed. We'll meet with them and we'll talk and we'll fix things. So that's extremely important.

The second point I want to make is a point we're making in all of the modes, whether it be in aviation or here or in others. We have no intention whatsoever of becoming the OAG or becoming auditors where we don't have subject matter experts. We will continue, as far as I can see into the future, to have subject matter experts, so there is no intention at all to back off from there. But we need a better mix of people, professional auditors or people who have skills as auditors.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You have twenty seconds.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

This is just a point of interest. You've taken out somewhere around 10,000 kilometres of rail since 1990. How does that affect the risk portion of rail safety when you look at the amount of rail service, the traffic that has been put in place? We have all this rail that has gone out, and now we have rail traffic increasing. How does that work in relation to what you're trying to prove with rail safety?

[Luc Bourdon]

We didn't see much difference. First of all, it depends on whether the rails were transferred to a federal short line or to a provincial short line. If they're transferred to a federal short line, they are still within what we do on a day-to-day basis. We assume that most of the time those rail lines came from CN or CP to short line. If the level of maintenance is the same as was done by CN and CP, we don't see any differences.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I would suggest that a lot of them just got jerked out. Many kilometres up through Ontario just disappeared.