I appreciate that, and I'll come back to it in a second.
The issues I have relate to some of the recommendations. I refer you in the panel's report to recommendation 19 on page 210—I'm looking now at the summary of recommendations—and on page 211 to all of recommendation 24.
Recommendation 19 relates to safety management systems and would relate primarily to the company, in this case—it's “companies”, but to CN, since we're talking with you right now—and it talks about the effectiveness of local occupational health and safety committees and the involvement of employees in identifying hazards and assessing and mitigating risks as part of safety management. This, as we heard in some of the testimony, had not been as diligently attended to as might be desired.
Recommendation 24, in a sequence of seven recommendations, again focuses on safety management systems, saying that this is a combination of effort that's required between Transport Canada and the companies that are involved.... I would note the seventh sub-bullet, the bottom one, which is the “means of involving railway employees”, and number 3, the “measurement of safety culture”.
I'm hoping that what I will hear from you, with your statement that nothing is more important to CN than safety, is that the way of doing this is not what appeared from the testimony we had to be one of discipline—a “culture of fear” was the way it was described in the testimony and in the report—wherein employees were intimidated to the point that they were afraid in many cases to pursue their concerns and that the use of these health and safety committees was minimized and bypassed.
I think we have passed a written translation.... I have a photograph, which perhaps, Mr. Chair, could be circulated to my members, and I've given a translation—or one is being done—to the Bloc. It's a photograph of a sign that was in the CN office when I was in Prince George. There was a derailment in the yard in which an engine had T-boned a train and we had a gasoline tanker explode. This was a sign on the wall. I was taking a variety of pictures, and I noted it.
At that time, as you can see on the list of “how we work and why”, safety is fourth out of five topics. The first three are: “service is our product”; “cost control is our ongoing challenge”; “asset utilization is our advantage”; and finally, “safety is every employee's responsibility”.
I would point out there the subtlety. It says, “every employee's responsibility”. It doesn't say “the company's”, or “...is everyone's responsibility”; it lays it on the employee. I wouldn't diminish the fact that safety needs to be the employee's priority as well, but it needs to be the company's corporate priority.
I was disappointed to see that, I guess, but I'm very pleased to see the actions that have been taken by CN with your appointment and with the attention that would appear now to make it a new focus, if you want to call it that, or renewed focus. I'll give you credit for that.
It includes not only, though, involving the employees, because their lives are the ones on the line; it also includes addressing the issues—and you mentioned Hinton—that deal with fatigue, which has to do with the way in which you operate. One of the concerns we had in British Columbia was that it appeared, when CN took over BC Rail, that they brought what is known as, I gather, water-grade railway operating procedure to a mountainous terrain. In other words, I don't think CN fully appreciated the challenges of the curves and the grades that British Columbia represented and that seemed to be reflected in some of the incidents that occurred—and of the length of the trains, which were restricted in numbers at times.
I'm pleased with your comments, your testimony, and I'm hoping that you indeed are able to follow through on the issues of training, of fatigue, and making this a priority in your company.