Evidence of meeting #19 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was employees.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We have done the first hour.
Mr. Miller, in relation to Mr. Jean's request about a written response to the railcar destruction, my interest would be in the aluminum cars.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
The hour has expired and the people from CP have to leave at one o'clock sharp. Do we want to extend this for one more round?
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Chair, we'd be open to another minute for each party, if that's amenable.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Thank you.
Your comment was that you don't discipline employees for reporting safety issues. I wanted you to know the testimony we heard at this committee was that employees were afraid to report safety concerns because they would be penalized for delaying trains. You need to know that.
I'd like to get a report from you in writing on the dynamic braking on locomotives in B.C. They were apparently taken off the locomotives, which we believe was a contributing factor to one of the accidents.
Second, I'm curious, as CN originally opposed the release of the audit that was ordered by the previous Minister of Transport under the Liberal government. That again is consistent with the concern of the testimony we heard here and on the panel.
Also, I'd like to say that I think you need to take a look at harmonizing or improving your communications with communities. When we heard testimony from the different municipalities, we heard CP was much better in responding than CN and that there was no cooperation.
Finally, on your suggestion that this photograph doesn't represent the hierarchy, if you go to the Prince George yard, this is repeated on five individual signs in another room, which go in descending order. They don't go horizontally and they're not shuffled differently; it's a descending order, and safety is the fourth down.
I want to clarify to my colleagues that when I said I was pleased, I'm not happy. I'm pleased you've been appointed and there is a change in focus. The point I made at the beginning of my testimony was that it appears since this committee began its work and since the panel was commissioned, there has been, I'm hoping, a recognition, and I'm taking you at your word that there is a recognition in CN.
I think the danger is that it's not simply what we heard from some of the senior people in CN when they testified before us that the concerns about safety were a perception rather than a reality, and they said that's your perception. Our point to them was that perception is reality. This panel's report has confirmed the reality of that perception.
When it says in the report there is a major disconnect between CN's stated objectives and what is occurring at employee levels, you don't blame the employees for that. You have to blame the company for not ensuring that those messages and policies are not only being enforced, but they're being transmitted and concern is being shown. When you have safety ranked fourth, in anybody's reasonable reading of this, you have to demonstrate that safety is number one.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Vice-President and Chief Safety Officer, Canadian National
To your point about perception, Mr. Bell, accidents aren't perceptions, I have to agree with you there. When an accident happens, that's a real thing we have to deal with.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
What is the most important safety measure you have implemented since you took up your position?
12:05 p.m.
Vice-President and Chief Safety Officer, Canadian National
We've really tried to bring about a much deeper understanding of what safety management systems mean to us, both in terms of what we have to do as the management of the company and of the opportunities they afford to us. Quite frankly, prior to my appointment, I think we thought of safety and the safety plan as one thing, and then the safety management system was something completely different; it was kind of over here and off to the side.
We've done a lot of work to say no, it's one thing. A safety management system has some very basic precepts about employee involvement, risk assessment, data collection, and analysis. One of the main pushes I've had in the past year is to try to bring about that understanding.
One other is to take what could arguably be—and I wouldn't argue with it—a lot of documentation that we expect our employees to know and live up to and try to streamline it, simplify it, make it more actionable and meaningful for them.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's unacceptable that we continue to have accident growth, even though there is the fact that their lines are being used more than ever before.
One thing that gives me concern about your testimony in particular is that there doesn't seem to be a business plan in your organization to demonstrate a workable solution to some of the culture issues, of employees feeling comfortable enough that they can report under safety management systems and not experience repercussions.
I know you're arguing that by example—by not having incidents, and so forth—you can create that element, but I'm not so sure. There hasn't been enough work done to create specific elements with the union to show that they're derived, not only in terms of procedures but also of programs and services, to develop that element.
Lastly, what is most important is some benchmarks for the company and its management—not just for the employees—and expectations on that management to meet those or to admit failure and put in the implementation necessary to fix the situation.
12:10 p.m.
Vice-President and Chief Safety Officer, Canadian National
I don't disagree with that at all, sir. This is probably not at the level you're searching for, but as a first step, we did take the safety management system regulations and translate them into what we expect our front-line managers to do. There are things in there such as outreach to the communities, which came up before. There are things about working with the health and safety committee in ensuring their effectiveness. These are probably not giant steps, but steps towards the goal you suggest.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Miller, the report points out two successful organizations with respect to implementing SMS that are pretty far down the track, so to speak: one is VIA; the other is Air Transat.
Has CN consulted or does CN plan to consult with either of those two agencies on how to improve SMS? Have you?
12:10 p.m.
Vice-President and Chief Safety Officer, Canadian National
I have not. I sit on committees with VIA Rail and I have the contact names at Air Transat. I have just not made that contact.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
As I think you can see from the committee, and as well from the government in undertaking this rail safety review, it's all about safety. That's where Canadians are—it's certainly where this government is—and I think by extension this Parliament is concerned with the safety of Canadians, and particularly with CN's performance or lack thereof.
The last time CN was here, I asked a very simple question, as my opening question, with respect to safety. I asked, “Will you admit that CN has broken trust with Canadians?” The answer I got from the CN official was that he was willing to admit there is a perception that CN has broken trust with Canadians.
This is my final question and the final question from this panel to you, Mr. Miller. I'm going to ask the same question: are you prepared today to admit that CN, with respect to safety, has broken trust with Canadians?
12:10 p.m.
Vice-President and Chief Safety Officer, Canadian National
Well, having personally lived through a couple of these big accidents, back in 2005 in particular, we certainly broke trust with Canadians and people locally at that point, and that's what we're trying to rebuild, step by step.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you, Mr. Miller, for attending today. We appreciate your time.
We're going to suspend for two minutes, and our next set of witnesses will come forward.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you, and welcome back.
Joining us now, from Canadian Pacific Railway, we have Mr. Brock Winter, senior vice-president of operations, and Mr. Glen Wilson, general manager, strategy planning and regulatory affairs.
I will advise the committee that these gentlemen have to be out of here at one o'clock sharp, so I'm going to try to keep the timelines as tight as possible.
Please proceed, and welcome.
12:15 p.m.
Brock Winter Senior Vice-President, Operations, Canadian Pacific Railway
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just to comment on why we need to be out of here quite sharply, I need to get back because we're doing our annual president's awards at CP and are recognizing a number of teams and individuals for outstanding safety behaviour that we experienced in the last 12 months.
Good afternoon, members. On behalf of Canadian Pacific, I would like to thank the committee for your invitation to appear before you today to discuss rail safety in Canada. My name is Brock Winter; I'm the senior vice-president of operations. I'm joined by Glen Wilson, general manager of strategy, planning, and regulatory affairs.
Given that we have not had a fulsome opportunity to present CP's approach on safety to the committee, I would like to spend a few minutes up front to discuss our approach to this critically important element of our business before delving into our comments on the Railway Safety Act review panel's report.
To summarize CP's position up front, we strive to be a North American leader in rail safety and in our dealings with communities. The facts support our claim, and we will illustrate this to you today.
Our safety culture is an integral part of our operations, and we're achieving results. In fact, CP leads all North American class 1 railroads in North American operations safety. Our commitment to safety never wavers, as the safety and health of Canadian Pacific employees and the safety of our operations are of paramount importance to everyone who works for our company.
A decade ago, CP realigned its management team and in the process created a consistent, visible focus on safety that has achieved extraordinary results. Since then, we have seen a 76% decrease in personal injuries and a 73% decrease in train accidents. Our train accident record, measured using FRA reporting criteria, has been the best among the large U.S. railroads for eight years out of the last decade, and in 2006 was 60% better than the average U.S. rail industry performance.
CP's safety success is a testament to the commitment and involvement of its management and employees in hundreds of safety, health, training, and business process activities. We have been building a safety-conscious culture whereby safety is built into our business processes. It is not a bolt-on activity or afterthought; it is how we do business.
We have consistently approached safety management using the seven key principles listed on the first slide. All of them are important factors in our safety success. Our employees recognize these efforts. On our employee insight surveys, conducted every two years, safety gets very high marks.
The graph on the bottom left of slide 1 illustrates two things. The first is that 70% of our employees agree or strongly agree with the statement that at CP workplace safety is a key priority. But also, there has been a significant improvement in this metric over the last few years.
We want to continue to improve on these results, and one thing we have learned at CP is that safety vigilance can never take a holiday; it's a 365-day-a-year job, 7/24.
The next question is how we get there and how we can ensure continuous improvement going forward. Slide 2 provides more detail on how CP manages safety. We have both a top-down and a bottom-up approach. While there is some top-down direction setting, we encourage and rely upon local initiatives and actions.
This requires an environment of free-flowing communication. We have three levels of joint union-management safety and health committees, including over one hundred workplace committees, four functional policy committees, and one senior policy committee. This structure and the processes we have built into safety management oversight ensure a consistent approach, with a constant focus on improving all aspects of safety.
Lastly, turning more specifically to train operating safety, we want to give you some idea of what it takes to operate a railway safely. Slide 3 depicts the four major operating elements: track, equipment, train operations, and the outdoor environment, with the human factor overlaying all the basic elements.
It has been said that railroading is an outdoor sport. We operate in all types of weather through all types of terrain, and this greatly influences our approach to managing safety. Most of our efforts go into preventing accidents. In the distant past, say 30 or 40 years ago, the primary defences we had to deal with prevention were all manual: things such as inspection and maintenance, many of which are still regulated to this day. These elements are depicted at the bottom of the slide. These activities continue to form the fundamental base of our proactive prevention processes. They include things such as track inspection, maintenance and renewal, equipment inspection and repair, train brake testing, and operating rules and practices.
Starting in the late 1970s, technology began to play an increasingly important role, with the widespread introduction of signalling systems and the first generation of wayside detectors and hot box detectors. These were designed to detect high heat levels on wheel bearings that were about to fail.
Technology now plays a much more significant role in our prevention efforts. The next generation of wayside detectors—acoustic detectors—do not use heat to determine failing bearings; they use the sound those bearings make. This new technology gives us a much wider margin of safety.
On the track, we now use advanced ultrasonic technology to detect flaws that are starting on the inside of steel rails, and we use GPS technologies to pinpoint any defects that are detected.
What really has enabled CP to be the North American leader in safety is our focus on the human factor. All humans make mistakes, many mistakes every day, from forgetting to do something, to misplacing something, to misunderstanding an instruction, or getting distracted. We have systematically tried to understand how and where human error has played a role in accidents and to improve those underlying elements that led to an error or a series of errors causing an accident.
To assist in this effort, we have an industry-leading set of investigation tools that encourages understanding of the multiple causes of accidents and promotes corrective actions that address all aspects of casualty, particularly at the interfaces between people and processes. We also have industry-leading train accident investigation cause-finding material, and about 1,500 managers and employees have received training so that we maximize the opportunity to learn from accidents that do occur and prevent their happening again.
Now let me discuss the importance of new technology in preventing train accidents. New technology provides a major opportunity for continual improvement.
The key word here is prediction. We call it the predictive mode. In the past, there was no precise way of knowing when a piece of equipment would fail. In many cases, a failure in a wheel bearing or axle can result in a major event such as a derailment. Over the last 20 years there have been major improvements in predictive technologies. The opportunities available now and in the next few years provide great potential to enhance safety through predicting equipment failures before they happen, rather than reacting to them, as in the past.
We would also like to make the committee aware of our approach in dealing with communities, especially when unfortunate incidents like derailments occur. We want to be clear: CP's highest priority is safety and the community. Our actions are not ad hoc and developed on the spot; rather, they are driven by strict protocols, which have demonstrated results we are proud of. We work with communities we run through by developing key relationships and contact information in advance. We ensure that there is an emergency response plan in place, one that has been shared and tested with communities and emergency services, and we ensure that we have dedicated professionals available 24/7, 365 days of the year, to respond to any incident that has the potential to negatively affect the environment.
Now I would like to spend a couple of minutes commenting on the work of the RSA panel. After that, we can take any questions you may have.
In general, we think the panel's report is well researched and thorough. We commend the Honourable Doug Lewis, the other panel members, and their staff for this work. At CP, we offered them the opportunity to put their safety gear on, get out on our railway, and interact with our employees, our managers, and our safety and health committee representatives. Whenever the panel interacted with our employees at CP, we offered them the chance to speak privately with those employees. I feel very comfortable in saying to you that we gave the panel unfettered access to our operation and to employees from all levels within our operation. We did these things in an open and honest effort to show them our operation, and we respect that they availed themselves of those opportunities.
This does not mean that we think we have everything right; far from it. The operation of a railway is a very complex undertaking. But looked at on the whole, we think the panel did a good job in fulfilling its mandate.
I do not have time here today to delve into the details of all 56 of the recommendations, but I would like to comment on a couple before taking your questions.
With regard to proximity issues, we are grateful that the panel recognized the efforts of the industry in this area, but we cannot emphasize strongly enough the risks presented by the continuing lack of attention to development adjacent to railway services. The panel was on a train when they watched in horror as a young child trespassed on our property at Wetaskiwin, Alberta. We are glad that the panel's report recognized the intervention of one of our train crew members to speak to the children involved that day. Frankly, our train crews confront these kinds of issues every day all across Canada, and they often do not have the ability to speak to the children directly involved.
The panel remarked that new developments near railway tracks are a multi-jurisdictional challenge. We accept that challenge. We accept that the challenge involves many parties, but more can be done to govern responsible new development in close proximity to rail operations.
Also, we need to curtail new crossings, especially over main-line operations. Every new crossing increases the risk of an unfortunate accident. We support VIA's comments in this area calling for regulations prohibiting the construction of new crossings, unless it can be shown clearly that all other options have been fully reviewed and determined not to be feasible.
Another area in which we would like to build upon the panel's work is in regard to new technology. In its recommendation, the panel states that Transport Canada should take a leadership role in any and all technological and scientific advances that would improve public safety. While we support this statement, again, we think it should be emphasized that this and the other recommendations regarding the application of technology to improve the safety of our industry do not go far enough.
I cannot stress enough the importance of technology in enhancing railway safety and in taking our industry to new levels of safety. This is especially true in operating a railway in extreme conditions such as those of this winter, during which we endured record snowfalls. All tools—including tax credits and capital cost allowances, to name a couple—should be explored to increase the uptake of new technology.
The last point I want to make about using technologies to advance railway safety is that these technologies are not science fiction. Some tremendous advancements are being introduced, others are being tested, and many more are on the horizon within the coming years.
The photos you are seeing now are high-resolution images of a brake shoe and wheel flange. These photos were taken at 40 miles an hour and provide the best information we've ever seen to monitor the conditions of wheels and braking equipment.
Now you are seeing two new technologies being introduced at CP to monitor the condition of our track and ties. The equipment shown on the top left corner of the slide is our track evaluation car consist. It does many things to test and evaluate the condition of our track, but one of the newest technologies we have added to that equipment is joint bar imaging, shown in the picture on the top right part of the slide. Again, those pictures of joint bars were taken at a high speed—in this case, 50 miles an hour.
On the bottom left part of the slide is a picture of a high rail truck with a device on the back that takes ultraviolet images of tie condition. The image it takes is shown on the bottom right part of the slide; that image was taken at night at a speed of 20 miles an hour.
With this new equipment, in 2007 CP inspected over 5,000 miles of track and was able to have better information than ever before on tie conditions.
The couple of photos I have shown you are just a small sampling of the technologies available to our industry now. Many others are being tested or even just being conceived. We are pleased to see the panel recognize the important need to bring greater focus in Canada to the research, development, and deployment of these kinds of technologies. CP believes great strides forward can be made in railway safety through facilitating the introduction of such technologies, and that the panel's work in this area is just the beginning of what will hopefully be a strong, renewed government focus.
In closing, I would like to reiterate that the culture CP is working hard to build puts safety and the environment first. This approach is not about words; it's about our actions and it's about how we conduct our business.
The illustration in slide 4 is a protocol that is reinforced with all our employees. It was referred to by the panel in this report. The protocol is quite simple and makes clear the order in which we do things if there is an incident.
The first step is to protect the community and our employees' safety. This happens by working with local leaders and emergency services. The second step is to mitigate and remediate any environmental impact. The third step is investigation, so that we can learn from and understand what caused the incident. Finally, the fourth step is to restore railway operations.
This is how we work, and we are proud of our record. In regard to the panel's report, again, we think the report is thorough and constructive. We urge the committee to look at the panel's report and recommendations in that light.
I'd like to thank you for this opportunity. We would be pleased to take any questions you might have.