Transport Committee on Dec. 11th, 2007

[Luc Bourdon]

Yes. That's under the Canada Labour Code, section 128, which is called the right to refuse. Every worker has the right to refuse if they believe they're subject to unsafe conditions, regardless of whether it's a train crew or a shop employee. Even someone in this room could do it.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

Do we have anything in the act, or a related act, to cover a whistle-blower, legislation where an individual would be protected if they came forward?

[Luc Bourdon]

It's done under TSB right now.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

What's TSB?

[Luc Bourdon]

That's the Transportation Safety Board, where people can call and report incidents anonymously. Usually when that happens, TSB will contact us and say they got a call. They won't tell us who called, and they will actually give us the circumstances of what happened. Usually we'll send someone out there to....

[Marc Grégoire]

But the whole philosophy of a safety management system is to encourage everybody in the company, all employees, to report problems. The company must have established a system where it's a non-reprisal environment, so people are encouraged to report issues without the fear of any kind of reprisal. This is very important in the implementation of a safety management system, because what you want to see is an increase in reports of defective equipment or of safety issues. You want to see those numbers increase so that they can be fixed by management.

If the company takes reprisal action—fires people or gets rid of people as soon as they report something—you won't see any reports coming after that.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Welland, ON]

You indicated that in 2006 you issued 50 notices, and in 2007, 37 notices. When you issue a notice, what happens?

[Luc Bourdon]

With regard to notices, usually we will ask the railway to give us an answer or fix a certain situation within a certain timeframe. It's not an immediate threat, whereas with a notice and order, we will usually impose some operating restriction. For instance, if it's a defective track, we will ask them to reduce the speed right away. If the equipment—locomotives and cars—is not in good order, they will not be allowed to use that equipment until it has been repaired.

The notice, for instance, is probably where an inspection wasn't done within a certain timeframe; however, we inspected the track and we know it's safe, but we will ask them to provide their own report within a certain timeframe.

So one gives you a period of time to fix it; the other one you have to fix right away.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, gentlemen.

I noted that you made your presentation with a certain degree of assurance and optimism. But your attitude does not reflect the urgency and especially the importance of the situation. You said that an advisory committee, which will produce a report in February of 2008, has been struck. You also said that you appeared before the committee in the past. I did not receive any information on the type of presentation you would have made to the committee. I don't know if that is public information or not. Before you respond, I just want to say that I get the impression that you are actually waiting for a decision. Another committee is studying the situation. As for us, we are studying it to the best of our ability.

A little earlier, in answer to a question from my colleague, you said that the number of inspectors had remained unchanged. The only improvement I noted was that you now have an inspection car in British Columbia. However, you know that Canada is a very big country. Quebec alone is bigger then France.

I get the impression that you don't feel it is urgent to improve the situation. You quote nice statistics which indicate that the number of accidents has gone down. It is easy to point to statistics, but the situation could change dramatically if, for instance, a major derailment happened next week. That would certainly turn these statistics upside down and we would react strongly.

I don't see anything reassuring in this situation we are discussing this morning. In light of the information you have provided, I can only cross my fingers and wait for the recommendation of this committee and of the other government advisory committee. It's as if you felt you are on easy street. I would like you to respond.

[Marc Grégoire]

I certainly did not want to give the impression that we are missing the boat, if I can put it that way. In fact, that is not at all the case. We have about a hundred inspectors and they work everywhere in each region. They conduct inspections, they issue notices and orders to the railway companies. I don't quite understand how you expect us to react here this morning.

Given the fact that the number of accidents increased in 2005, the department decided last year to undertake a complete review of the Act. We cannot make any recommendations before seeing the panel's report, but that won't be long. We will get it in a few months. I really don't understand what attitude you expect us to take.

Statistics show that since 2005, following the measures we implemented, and the spot inspections and quick operations we conducted, the number of accidents decreased. It shows that the railway companies took concrete measures and that they took this matter very seriously. We have not reduced the number of inspections nor the level of investment, and we do not intend to do so.

Do you have any special recommendations?

[Luc Bourdon]

As far as the new car we purchased is concerned, that was a pilot project. We had never used a car like that one before. As you know, you cannot get to a railway crossing, get on board and go. You first need to obtain authorization from the railway companies to use the car on their tracks. So a lot of legal and operational preparators work has to be done, and once that is completed, we will be able to use the car.

We are conducting a follow-up with regard to section 32, which was submitted to Canadian National. By the end of the week, industry officials will receive a departmental order to completely overhaul the training of railway crews. We asked the industry to review its rail operation rules. That was done, and it yielded a very thick document. We are reviewing it for approval. We are reviewing the rules governing air breaks, and those rules will probably be tightened. We are also undertaking a complete inspection of all of CN's tracks and CP's signals. We are doing all of these things on top of our regular work.

We have really started to review our rules one by one to determine whether they are adequate, and we are asking the railway industry to do the same. So we are working on regulations. This work might not be visible on the ground, but it will provide Transport Canada with better compliance tools.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

You talked about the safety management system which the companies must implement. However, the railway workers who appeared before the committee told us that they were never told of such a system by their employer. This showed us that the system never reached the workers, that perhaps it was just a theorical notion confined to the inside of an office. And this concerns me because the system itself is good, but it must be monitored and enforced by the department.

[Luc Bourdon]

CN's 2005 audit report revealed that employees were not consulted very often, and this was especially true for this company.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

In Quebec, the last accident which happened was in Montmagny. It was a major derailment in the middle of the town, which was built around the railway tracks. The trains travelled at lower speeds while the track was being repaired. The town's mayor, who appeared before this committee, asked that the speed limit be permanently reduced to make the townspeople feel safer.

I mention this because it wasn't just another derailment. In fact, this time the accident touched people directly. I know that some of them do not want to live near the tracks anymore because they panick anytime a train goes by.

Can you tell me if Transport Canada agreed to reduce the speed limit to make the citizens of Montmagny feel safer?

[Marc Grégoire]

As far as I know, the department has not imposed any permanent speed reductions in any village, town, or city. At issue in that particular situation are the track geometry and the safety of neighbouring areas.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Do you know whether CN agreed to reduce the speed at the request of the town?

[Luc Bourdon]

We conducted the appropriate on-site inspection. The last I heard about this issue is that the townspeople were told to speak with CN. As long as track safety rules are respected, we cannot take action under our regulatory framework by ordering, for example, that the speed limit be reduced from 60 m/h to 30 m/h. I would have to check on the status of negotiations with the Quebec Region people.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Can you send me the information?

[Luc Bourdon]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you.

First of all, I would like you to clarify one thing. Mr. Jean had talked to you about the track condition and the number of incidents that were related to poor track condition. Do you have an exact percentage of how many derailments are a result of poor track condition?

[Luc Bourdon]

The Transportation Safety Board would have that information. We don't keep that at Transport Canada. And they would probably only have it for the accident they have investigated, which is not all of them.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

This is a rail safety review, so I'm a little surprised we don't have that kind of information.

[Luc Bourdon]

We can request it from the railway. From time to time we do ask the railway to provide that information to us.