Transport Committee on Feb. 17th, 2011

[Michael Teeter]

Unfortunately, it is not always the case that Transport Canada delegates to people with no conflict of interest. It's a small world, and some of those people are in a clear conflict of interest. They might be delegated to inspect the very people who pay them for other services.

I appreciate the standards that professional engineering degrees and so on confer. But at the same time, why wouldn't we set up something appropriate in the first place that says that anybody who has been delegated the power of the minister, which is what this is, can't have a conflict of interest? What way would you propose? What is the best way to avoid conflict of interest? In the case of the inspectors, make sure that they all work for the federal public service. That's what we're saying.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

[Christine Collins]

I just want to add to that, if I may.

The other issue is the dollars and cents. If you're allowing a company to self-regulate or self-inspect, they're always looking at the bottom dollar and the cost. That's not an issue when you have federal government employees maintaining responsibility for inspection as well as for regulation and oversight.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Plamondon.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To begin, I will give you time to appreciate the great job our interpreters are doing.

I fully share your view that inspectors should be federal government employees. There must be a shared view about security matters and also there should be no room at all for conflicts of interest.

Earlier, Mr. Kelsey, from TransLink in Vancouver, as well as Ms. Fréchette, from the Agence métropolitaine de transport, and Mr. Percy, from the Greater Toronto Transit Authority, seemed to be saying that this bill is rather unnecessary. If I look at the situation in Montreal, which I know somewhat better, 90% of all routes belong to CN or CP. They are therefore under federal jurisdiction. These two railways have to comply with provincial security standards, with provincial regulations which ensure proper enforcement of security standards. Indeed, no serious or even minor accidents have been reported by the board.

These witnesses say that the bill is unnecessary because rules are already in place within their organizations and at the provincial level. This raises a quasi constitutional issue insofar as the bill creates an interference with provincial jurisdiction.

They tell us that if we impose regulations on them, they will have to tell CN and CP what to do. But CN and CP may not want to take orders from these organizations or have them interfere in their business. So these witnesses are saying that things are fine as they stand, that we should let them be, but that some other measures should be taken in the area of safety.

For example, your suggestions about whistleblowing and the requirement that inspectors be government employees seem very legitimate to me. But what do you think about the views of these three organizations that appeared earlier before us? I would like to hear the opinion of the two unions represented by Ms. Collins and Mr. Piché.

[Mike Piché]

The way I understand it from my colleague here is that the concern is not so much the inspection of the railways; it's the inspection of the inspectors. It is rather ironic that I'm going to inspect my own colleagues to report to my own colleagues. That's where the situation gets a little hazy. So what I believe you are looking for is an independent body when it comes to dealing with just that particular sector, not with the railway or CP or CN in general.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

When you say that you are going to inspect inspectors, this means that since the railways of CN and CP are under federal jurisdiction, other inspectors than yours will be doing the same job. You say you would inspect inspectors. Who are they?

[Mike Piché]

I'll let my colleague answer, because I'm with the steelworkers representing a different sector here.

[Christine Collins]

I think you had two different questions. One question was on the whistleblowers, and I think that was pretty self-explanatory, so unless you have another question, I'll go on. I guess the question dealt with federal jurisdiction versus people who appeared here before who came under provincial jurisdiction.

If they are using national rail lines, whether they are subcontracting from CP or subcontracting from CN, Transport Canada is the regulator and therefore there is a federal responsibility.

I did arrive early and I heard some of the presentations that were made about subcontracting and not having access to records. I think that's irrelevant and it's a red herring. The users are required to do their safety management system reports and they are required to provide that information to Transport Canada. If there was a conflict between somebody who was subcontracting from CN or CP and accessed the records of CN, their safety management system records of the main rail body, then that certainly could be addressed. The appropriate body to address it would be the Transport Canada rail section, in my opinion.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

When there is a contract between the Agence métropolitaine de transport of Montreal and CN and CP, the Montreal agency pays CN and CP for the use of their tracks. The role of the federal government, in its area of jurisdiction, is to ensure that these tracks are safe.

You do not seem to have a problem with this and the fact that no additional employees are being added by the Agence métropolitaine de transport de Montréal, even if the bill requires it. What is important in your view is that all federal tracks be inspected by one and the same agency, that the work be done by federal employees and that there be no sub-contracting. Is that correct?

The fact that this bill does not deal with the agencies in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, because they are already tied to the federal government by contract and because CP and CN's tracks are federal, is not a problem to your mind. In other words, you respect the views of the earlier witnesses.

[Christine Collins]

I'm not sure that you really want me to answer that question, as it wasn't part of my presentation of what I'm doing, but if you're asking me, I have a serious problem with what they were saying, a very serious problem.

If I were to simplify, and you used the example of a Montreal agency that is using CN and CP rail lines, and the portion of the line they're using is governed by the federal government, then Transport Canada--

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

At 90%.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have to interrupt. We're way over time.

I'll go to Mr. Del Mastro, as we're really tight on time.

I'm sorry, it's Mr. Bevington, very quickly, for seven minutes.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Very quickly? Seven minutes, I think that's standard fare, isn't it? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very interested in what you have to say about the relationship to this act that the previous group talked about, because of course I was trying to determine whether it would be sensible to have inspectors from different agencies engaged in the same railway. That seemed to be where they were suggesting it would go. Isn't that what this bill is trying to avoid?

[Christine Collins]

Maybe I missed what they were trying to say. I was sitting at the back. But we're very clearly saying that the inspection, the oversight, and the responsibility need to rest with Transport Canada and Rail Safety.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

What is the state of the rail inspectors in Canada? Over the past decade, has the number of employees gone up or down?

[Christine Collins]

I would say that the number of employees at Rail Safety has gone up slightly over the last number of years. I don't have the figures right here with me, but work has been done within Rail Safety looking at the various regions, etc., where the inspectors are, and the responsibility of the inspectors. I know that the department has put a lot of work into appropriate levels of staffing.

There is still some staffing going on, so I wouldn't say we're fully staffed and happy. Certainly the concerns we raised about where there were some holes have been addressed. They're working towards what we would consider a fair staffing level within Rail Safety.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Has the development of SMS on the rail system changed the level of inspectors at this time?

[Christine Collins]

No, and we don't expect it will. As I tried to indicate in my report, we use the rail safety model in the way that rail has gone forward in SMS as the example that should be used in all modes. Aviation and marine could take a chapter out of the book of rail as they try to address SMS.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Okay.

Mr. Piché, we looked at the brief you gave us ahead of time, and I thank you for that. Many of the issues you seem to be speaking to deal with the regulations that would be in place. Do you agree with the presentation from the previous union group that regulations should be brought forward through Parliament for review by parliamentarians?

[Mike Piché]

In the group I currently work with, we're inspected by HRSDC, not Transport Canada. That causes an issue for us. We would prefer to have Transport Canada as our inspector, because the time it takes to get an officer to a site is much quicker than when we're dealing with HRSDC.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

But many of your concerns deal with the regulations that are going to be put in place, and they are certainly not within this bill. They will come after.

[Mike Piché]

That's right.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Would you suggest, as we've heard from other union groups, that those regulations come through the committee?

[Mike Piché]

I agree.