Transport Committee on Dec. 11th, 2007

[The Chair (Mr. Mervin Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC)), Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, and good morning, everyone.

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 7. The orders of the day are rail safety in Canada. As we all know, we've been reviewing the rail safety situation in Canada.

Joining us today from the Department of Transport are Mr. Marc Grégoire, assistant deputy minister of safety and security, and Luc Bourdon, director general of rail safety.

What I thought we would do is ask for an opening presentation; I know it won't be that long. Then members have several questions they'd like to ask. As we get closer to the end of the meeting, once our witnesses have presented and we've asked all our questions, we'll have a brief discussion on the draft. Then we'll end the meeting by finalizing Thursday morning's meeting.

With that, I'll welcome our guests. If you have a presentation, please feel free.

[Marc Grégoire, Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport]

I'm pleased to be here today to respond to any questions or concerns the committee may have regarding railway safety in Canada. I'm joined by Luc Bourdon, director general of rail safety.

You may recall that we provided the committee with a description of the general foundation for railway safety in Canada when we were last here in May of 2007. It was the end of May, I believe. I would, of course, be happy to go over any of the ground we previously covered.

My intention today, however, is to focus on what has taken place since my last appearance. That's why it's going to be short. I will also provide you with our proposed next steps.

As you no doubt know, in December 2006, the government announced the Railway Safety Act Review. The purpose of the review is to improve railway safety in Canada, and to further promote a safety culture within the railway industry, while preserving and strengthening the vital role this industry plays in the Canadian economy.

This review was undertaken by an independent four-member panel. The panel consulted a wide range of stakeholders. These included the public, railway companies and their industry associations, railway company employees and their unions, railway customers, provinces and territories, municipalities, aboriginal and environmental groups, and Transport Canada and other federal government departments and agencies.

Efforts were also made to ensure an extensive range of access for input, including a website to accommodate input from the public.

I expect the panel report will be available publicly early in 2008, probably in February 2008, to be more prrecise.

In the meantime, we continue our ongoing work with the railway companies to actively identify and rectify immediate threats to safety through our active inspection and auditing programs.

I should mention that we've had some successes in 2007, with main track derailments down 9.1%—that's for the period from January to October—and accidents, overall, down 4.3%. Again, that's for the same period.

These are, indeed, encouraging trends, but there's no time or place for complacency when it comes to the safety and security of Canadians and their transportation system.

I should mention, speaking of security, that the minister signed an MOU with the Railway Association of Canada on security in order for all railway company members to make security plans on a voluntary basis.

So while we anticipate that 2008 will see a continuation of these encouraging trends, it will certainly not happen without a commitment to safety from the industry.

As I have mentioned on other occasions, railway companies are responsible for making the appropriate decisions to ensure that operations are safe and that they are in compliance with all federal regulations, standards, and rules. I believe that with hard work and a commitment to safety, Transport Canada and the railway industry can help cement these positive safety trends.

We're ready for your questions now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

We'll start with Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, and thank you, gentlemen, for appearing today and for coming back.

I have a series of questions. First of all, I did appear before the panel last year. I think it was last year; it may have been early this year. From your brief that you've given us this morning and from your comments, and I just confirmed with you, I see that you appeared as well. You say, “as well as Transport Canada and other federal government departments and agencies”. This committee would like to have a copy of the material that you presented to them so that we could have that for our consideration.

This committee, of course, started the question on the investigation into rail safety in October 2006. The minister then appointed his panel in December. I would be hopeful that before the minister takes final action on the panel's recommendations, he would come before this committee so that we can complete our report and make any comments that we wish to make. But I have some specific questions that I would like to ask.

Some of the things we heard during the discussion with the witnesses was that there was a lack of teeth in the Railway Safety Act compared to the Aeronautics Act. On the issue of fines, of penalties, the railways said they didn't really think it was necessary to do that. We heard about the issue of conflicting standards--the American standards, the FRA standards--on determining what constitutes an accident, what constitutes...I guess not a derailment, but an accident by virtue of the value of the money involved, the cost of the incident.

I would like to know whether or not Transport Canada feels there is a reasonable opportunity for some type of, I'll use the term “international”, but certainly American, U.S. standard, whereby we have some method of comparing statistics, because it appears in the testimony that the railways can use, when it suits them, either the FRA standard or the Canadian standard to create the most favourable picture.

In your comments earlier and just now, you talked about the number of incidents being down. I would appreciate getting the actuals, maybe in a graphic or a spreadsheet form. We know that 2005 was supposed to be a spike year, a really bad year. When the railways were here, they proudly said, and I think you in your testimony said, well, they're down, but they're down for the worst year they had for a long time. Being down from your worst time isn't necessarily anything to be proud about.

It's good to say yes, we've moved in the right direction, but if you say they're down 4%, or whatever the figure you just gave us--down 9% on accidents and 4% on derailments, or perhaps I reversed those from down 9% on derailments and 4% on accidents--that is down from what? In this case, it's 2007 to 2006. How much was 2006 down from 2005? We heard figures previously on five-year averages, but a five-year average would include 2005, which was an abnormally high year. If you start taking averages and you include one figure that is higher than the others, that will distort those figures.

I'd like to know what your comments or recommendations would be relative to trying to draw some parallels in the Railway Safety Act to the Aeronautics Act and putting teeth into it in the form of fines, penalties, making corporate responsibility...whether it's individuals, the chief executive officer, or the president.

In the Aeronautics Act, my understanding is that there is responsibility that assigns to certain individuals within those companies. We don't have that in the Railway Safety Act. What would your thoughts be about having that there?

Could we get in future some actual statistics for us to see? I know that going back 10 years ago, approximately 1995, 1997, somewhere in there, when the railway safety management systems were put in, the statistics dropped. But they dropped, as I understand, because there was a difference in the way they were reported, not necessarily a real drop in terms of safety, as a result of SMS systems going in.

The other question I'd like to know is, in terms of the number of inspectors, do we have 35 railways...?

Am I out of time already?

You're just hassling me.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

This is something I feel very passionate about, as you can tell.

I gather we have about 30 to 35 major railroads in Canada. We have about 25 to 30 provincial railroads. I'm thinking of BCR, as an example.

How many inspectors do we have? I'm not talking about people who are in Ottawa. I'm talking about people out in the field who are there, able to go out and investigate these incidents, which seem to be occurring with increasing frequency. There was another derailment just the other day. We've had some really serious ones in British Columbia, and we obviously had some in Lake Wabamun, Alberta. In some cases there's been death involved, in some cases environmental disaster, and in other cases there has been risk to neighbouring communities. In every instance there is the delay in the movement of the freight goods that are important to the economy of Canada.

Increasingly, rail is a method of transporting hazardous goods. It is considered to be one of the safest ways of transporting hazardous goods. But if we have a risk of derailment and accident--I realize that's likely not as risky as maybe trucking or other methods of transporting hazardous goods--we need to be able to assure Canadians that it's as safe as possible. In my community we've got a chlorine plant, and railways go through that everyday.

I would appreciate your comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You've got eight seconds.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

No, take what you need.

[Marc Grégoire]

I will answer your questions in the same order that I took notes.

The first copy of the presentation will come back to you.

Was it translated?

[Luc Bourdon, Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport]

I'll have to check if it was translated.

[Marc Grégoire]

We'll make sure that if and when we give it to you it is translated.

You would like the recommendations of the panel looked at by SCOTIC before the minister makes a decision on it. I'll relay that to Minister Cannon. As you know, the panel will make recommendations. That's an external, independent panel, so we have to look at those ourselves and make a recommendation to the minister. I'll tell him that you want to make your own on that.

With respect to the lack of teeth on fines and penalties, it is true that the Railway Safety Act doesn't have a monetary penalties scheme. For that purpose it is quite different from the Aeronautics Act, which you mentioned, and even more so the amended Aeronautics Act, which is now awaiting third reading in the House.

We would like the ability to impose fines, because prosecutions are rare compared to fines. For instance, monetary penalties were introduced in the Aeronautics Act in 1985, and we publish all the penalties that are imposed on aviation stakeholders. It's not ideal. We would like to think that companies should comply first. But it has been a very effective tool, especially with fines that can increase in such a manner that they pay attention.

I don't know what the panel will recommend, but this is certainly something the department will want to look at seriously, given that we've put significant increases in the Aeronautics Act amendments and that we've also allowed for monetary penalties in the Canada Shipping Act, 2001. We're also going that way in the marine environment. We recently enacted regulations under the Marine Transportation Security Act. This is something that we believe is an effective tool and that we would certainly like to consider here.

With respect to what constitutes an accident and why it is different from the States with the FRA, it's not our legislation that calls for the report of accidents; it's the Transportation Safety Board. It's the railway company that has to comply with the transportation safety board act, which forces them to report accidents.

International methods to compare safety are quite interesting. I've had the same questions you have had as to why is it so difficult to compare. Certainly we will try to find ways...but, again, the collection of the data is done by the Transportation Safety Board. They would be the first architect of a change in that regard.

You want safety data that goes further back than 2005. It is true that the numbers we gave you start from the worst year, but we have graphs and stats that go way beyond that. We can provide that to the committee. Whenever we make a presentation, we use a graph--for instance, when we compare safety data between all the modes for the last 10 years. I believe I may have given that to the committee before, but we'll dig out that railway safety data. You will see it has come down, and then gone up in 2005, and then down again since. But we will provide you with the exact figures.

With respect to “accountable executive”, I have no views; I serve my minister. My minister has views, so I will relay your questions to my minister. But it is true that there is a difference between the Railway Safety Act and the Aeronautics Act.

The Aeronautics Act introduces the concept of “accountable executive”, which is, generally speaking, the person who can make the decision on budgets in a company. Generally speaking, we have found that it is the CEO.

On the drop in statistics, we covered all that.

You asked about how many inspectors we have. We now have 101 inspectors, in total, including those in Ottawa. In the regions, specifically in our various Transport Canada centres, which are spread from Vancouver to Moncton, we have 86 inspectors at this time.

I believe I have covered most of your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to talk about how many inspectors you have. It's no secret that the safety management system in the railway industry has not yielded the expected results.

Our in-depth analysis of the airline industry has made us aware that we must continue with monitoring and inspection activities to ensure that the railway companies do their job. It's the only way to achieve this.

You said that there are currently 86 inspectors in the field. Is this because that number has increased recently or because you intend to hire more of them?

[Marc Grégoire]

The number has remained unchanged over the last two years. In fact, I have a chart here which goes back to 2002. There were originally 95 inspectors for all of Canada and that number has now gone up to 101 today. The number hasn't changed since 2003. It is stable, there has been no change.

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

Well don't you think that is precisely the problem?

[Marc Grégoire]

In fact, there was an increase in 2002, if I recall correctly. So we added...

[Luc Bourdon]

We added two inspectors per region.

[Marc Grégoire]

We added two inspectors per region. So there was an increase in 2001 or 2002, or even perhaps in 2000. But there has been no change since then.

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

You talked about the safety management system. Is this to control the system or to monitor the condition of the tracks? How does it work? Have you changed the way you operate? That's what I'd like to know.

[Luc Bourdon]

No, the number of inspections has not gone down since then. We still operate with both systems in parallel, because the level of compliance of the safety management system is not where we would like it to be. Consequently, we are still not confident that we can reduce the number of inspections. We continue to inspect the locomotives, cars, tracks and bridges, like before. The number of inspections has not, or hardly, gone down.

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

How does that affect the inspection of the tracks? How many kilometres do you inspect each year? Do you have any figures? You have a report.

[Luc Bourdon]

Yes, we have a report. That number has increased because in British Columbia, we have bought a car which allows us to take readings of the tracks, to read the track geometry, and this is something we could not do before. This car is similar to the ones owned by the railway companies. We bought a first car, which allowed us to increase our track inspection capacity and to take much more specific readings. We plan on adding more of these cars in every other region. We can cover much more territory now and take much more specific readings. We can now look at these readings and compare them with those provided by the railway companies to see whether they correlate.

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

How many cars do you have?

[Luc Bourdon]

We only have one, which we bought last year.