Transport Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

[Glen Wilson]

Mr. Dhaliwal, we have employees involved in risk assessments as well. We ask them to fully assess risk and to do it in a robust fashion when they're looking at a change. We do it in a way that generates a substantial list of what risks might exist. Any lawyer who looks at it will tell us that this is a dangerous document to allow to be produced.

You can do risk assessments in a much skinnier way, if you wish. We want to encourage our management and our employees to consider risk fully, to consider what mitigations they need to take to address risk. In order to do that, we believe it shouldn't be a document that is available to the public, because it then poses a risk to our company and can be misinterpreted.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

So it's not from a competitive perspective that you don't want to disclose, but it has to do with certain other issues.

[Glen Wilson]

No, it's not a competitive issue at all.

[Paul Miller]

Mr. Dhaliwal, please be assured that CN and CP are fierce commercial competitors. We cooperate with my colleague Glen Wilson and his people on safety and operational matters, but we are fierce commercial competitors.

I share Mr. WIlson's perspective on this. It's not that we don't want to share the audits and the risk assessments with our employees, because they're involved in them. We share them with Transport Canada and with the TSB. But when it gets beyond that group that needs to know, we get into a lot of questions, a lot of interpretation. We're concerned about spinning our wheels.

The other thing we're concerned about is that both CN and CP operate in the U.S., where our whole structure is quite different. Please be assured that the way we document them here in Canada is much more robust than the way we do it in the U.S., because of litigation concerns.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you. I have to end it there.

Mr. Trost.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the 2008 report, “Stronger Ties: A Shared Commitment to Railway Safety”, some independent experts gave their personal ratings of the safety cultures of VIA, CP, and CN. They gave VIA a 4 on a scale of 5; they gave CP a 2, and they gave CN a 1, not the most encouraging results for two of the three companies. I hope since then—and I'm sure you'll say you have—you've taken to heart the recommendations to change the culture of safety.

In a broad sense, how do you think this legislation will help your companies to change the culture? Even with all the rules in the world, if people don't internalize the principles that safety is important and must be made a priority, nothing will change.

I'd like a response, particularly from CN and CP, but also from VIA. How do you think this will help to change the culture, and how have you been changing the culture since this report was submitted?

[Cliff Mackay]

If I could just make one overall comment...?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Sure.

[Cliff Mackay]

It's already happening. All of the work that has gone in through the working groups, and all of the other things that have happened as a result of these reports, have already changed a lot of culture. There's a lot more dialogue that goes on among unions, stakeholders, railways, and a whole bunch of other people.

There have been literally hundreds of people involved in these processes in the last three to four years, so it has changed things already.

[Paul Miller]

From CN's perspective, sir, interestingly, we just did a survey on safety culture with our employees. This was done in November. For our unionized employees, we got responses back from about 2,200, so that's over 10% of the population, and that gave us a 3.5 out of 5. So it's not a perfect score by any stretch of the imagination, and it's one that showed us a lot of room for opportunity, which we intend to continue to pursue.

On the structure of the Railway Safety Act review, as has been mentioned here, this act very much supports the work that was done in the Railway Safety Act review. Probably some of the most important working committees were on safety management and safety culture development. We participated. Everyone represented here participated, Transport Canada did, and the unions did. We're very focused on a number of those initiatives to continue to pursue and improve that.

[John Marginson]

I guess I could begin by saying I'm happy that we didn't score five out of five, because I don't think you can ever say that you're there. As I mentioned earlier, with our safety management system, we began our work in that area in 1998 and it's still in progress. It's still in evolution and it's still being improved.

But I really believe that when you're talking about a cultural thing, it's really living the safety consciousness every day. Almost every day I take a look at local health and safety committee minutes and send a comment back to the co-chairs. I know that our president does the same thing.

It's just living through those kinds of situations and those kinds of examples every day. That's where you bring the culture up in an organization.

[Glen Wilson]

Much as my colleagues have said, Mr. Trost, the culture of safety did not start with a review of the Railway Safety Act; it continued throughout it, and it will continue past this legislation.

We've surveyed employees regularly over the course of time and over the course of the last decade. Every time we survey our employees about whether they feel safety is a priority in their workplace, we see an improvement in the response. In the most recent survey, it was up to 80% of employees who feel that CP is providing a safe workplace to them.

When you look at the legislation, I think you have to look at the whole RSA review process. It generated 56 recommendations, half of which were furthered by joint working groups involving labour unions, the regulator, and the industry, so that's part of the success of that process.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Looking at your resumés here is very interesting. Well, let me back up a little bit. In this legislation, there's a new position whereby every company is going to have a chief safety officer, to the point of having criminal liability being attached to it. Now, in looking at some of the resumés here, some of you gentlemen could possibly be appointed to those positions in your companies.

What I'm wondering is how this change in the legislation will change the way your companies deal with safety. Also, assuming that you would be the people promoted--or punished, as I'm not sure what it would be with that position--how would it change the way you would approach safety management inside your various corporations?

I'd appreciate your responses.

[Paul Miller]

I am the chief safety officer for our company now, and I am the person responsible for submitting our SMS each year to Transport Canada, amongst other responsibilities.

Again, sir, I would just focus on the fact that the work the panel did is I think very well reflected in the legislation as it has been proposed here. Again, we have some suggestions, but the work is there, so we--

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

So would your job actually change?

[Paul Miller]

Would it change? Well, it always does change; it continues to change.

The collaboration with employees and their representatives, the outreach to employees, and the outreach to the regulator are I think just further enhanced in the legislation the way it's written.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

If there's no one else...?

[A voice]

Go ahead, John.

[John Marginson]

It's quite possible that if this were to go through, I would be the individual. I don't have an issue with that; I'm not afraid of that. It's really what I do today. It's how I live my life at VIA Rail today.

The only other individual who I think might be more interested in taking this would be our president, because that's how very strongly he feels about safety at VIA Rail.

So I'm not afraid if it's me, and I would certainly support my boss if he chose to take that on himself.

[Glen Wilson]

I'll just add this. I was going to say much the same thing as Mr. Marginson. My president and CEO of Canadian Pacific would also take issue if I were to call myself the chief safety officer of CP. He believes that's him.

Does the bill change my set of responsibilities? I don't think it really does. As Mr. Miller said, they're constantly evolving. Safety and the involvement of employees in our process is a priority to our company, but whether I'm the individual under that act or not, I guess we'll see when the legislation comes into effect.

I, and I know our president and CEO, take it personally very seriously and to heart that these decisions are made in everyone's safe interest.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

We have a few minutes left. I'm going to go for one more round. You can have just one question. If you can, keep it brief, and we'll try to get everybody in.

Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Last week we were here listening to the union representatives. One issue that came up was a critique of schedule management. That is quite a concern to me, and I'm sure it's a concern to you as well because you treat your employees to the best of your abilities.

When it comes to scheduling, should it be left to labour and management, or should we regulate it to prevent fatigue?

[Cliff Mackay]

You do regulate it now, sir. There are regulations with regard to fatigue management. But again, I'll let my colleague speak to the detail.

[Glen Wilson]

I'll just add that what Mr. Mackay is referring to is the work-rest rules. They do provide a framework for regulating work scheduling. What you can really only expect to manage is the schedule and the provision of time off. You can't regulate fatigue per se because you can't regulate what people do with their spare time. You can't regulate nutrition habits and all the other things that go into a fatigue management plan.

When we talk about fatigue management, we apply the most advanced science on the subject that there is, really, in the world. It comes out of Australia, and it looks at analyzing work schedules and identifying risk areas as to whether or not the schedule is providing adequate opportunity for rest. But it's very much a shared obligation on industry to provide work schedules, but also on employees who participate in it to take rests when they have those opportunities.

[Paul Miller]

From CN's perspective, Mr. Dhaliwal, a number of our employees are subject to some type of scheduling now—not nearly as many as we'd like. I do believe it's something that properly rests between the employees and their representatives and the company.

I'm pleased to report that in the most recent collective agreement we concluded with our conductors, scheduling pilots are part of that agreement. They're a commitment that we've got and that we're working towards now.