Evidence of meeting #19 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was railway.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Can you give this committee and Canadians three practical ideas for how we would strengthen this SMS private sector-regulator relationship and interface? What two or three things should we be doing?
Board Member, Transportation Safety Board of Canada
The first thing is to really look at how companies have implemented SMS. Unfortunately, some companies may see it as a manual and not a pervasive process that has to take place throughout the company, which has people in a constant mindset of looking for things that can go wrong. I think, first, the regulator has to look at how companies have implemented SMS and not just look at whether they have a process in place, but if that process is effective.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Perhaps I could switch gears and go to another issue, which is the question of third party liability.
Since the accident in Lac-Mégantic, a lot of Canadians have been asking questions about who is responsible, who ought to have known, and who is responsible for the cleanup. We really have no idea and, to our knowledge, we have no real idea what the long-term costs of this are going to be. We have no idea, for example, what the ecological and environmental costs and damage will be in the waterways that have been affected.
Many Canadians have written to me asking this committee to look at third party liability and have gone as far as to say that liability has to be shared. They have mentioned bringing into the tent those who are importing, those who own dangerous goods. For example, if an oil refinery is importing diluted bitumen, or in this case, Bakken crude, and there's a problem and a major accident, then liability should be shared not only among the federal government, the provincial government, and the railways, but also with the owner of the crude in that tanker. Have you looked at this issue?
Chair, Transportation Safety Board of Canada
No, we haven't looked at it and we won't be looking at it, because it's a matter outside our mandate. It's very clear in the legislation that we operate under that the board does not assign blame or liability. We leave that to other systems. We leave it to the CTA. We leave it to the courts. We leave it to policy-makers within government. We focus solely on safety issues.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I'm not asking the Transportation Safety Board to assign blame; I'm asking whether the Transportation Safety Board has examined the question of liability in the context of improving safety. If liability were shared more directly with the owners of the dangerous goods that cause a problem, would that have a bearing, for example, on having the owner of that property, those materials, asking much more difficult, much more probative questions of the shippers, paying much closer attention to how that material is being transported? Would that not increase safety?
Chair, Transportation Safety Board of Canada
It would have to be clearly demonstrated that there was a strong link to the safety issues in a particular investigation before we would go down that road.
Liberal
Chair, Transportation Safety Board of Canada
It's an ongoing investigation, so at this point we're still looking at everything, and I can't speak to the particulars in that investigation.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
You talked about the ERAPs, the emergency response assistance plans. When the government announced, with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, that they had arrived at an agreement around disclosure, many people were astonished, frankly, that the decision made was that railways were going to be compelled to disclose 90 days after the fact what they had transported through a municipality. Many Canadians on the ground, councillors, mayors, citizens, were asking why we aren't actually asking them to disclose 90 days in advance what's coming through their municipalities so they can be better prepared, so their first responders can know, and all of these other issues that you've raised can be addressed.
Have you said anything about this or were you involved in this? Can you help us understand why it's after the fact and not before?
Chair, Transportation Safety Board of Canada
We were not involved in that. I think that's an issue of public policy among the citizens, the municipalities, the government, and the railways. Where we do get involved is when there is a safety issue. There is a safety issue in terms of first responders. They absolutely have to know what they're going to be dealing with. They absolutely have to have the right resources in place if there is a major accident. That is the thrust of our third recommendation, calling for emergency response assistance plans.
Conservative
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Ms. Tadros, thank you to you and your dedicated team. We appreciate that you are here as we undertake what is an important investigation of our own into how we can improve safety management systems in the transportation of dangerous goods regime. I want to thank you and your team for the work that you do, especially your work into what is a difficult and ongoing investigation into the tragic accident at Lac-Mégantic.
Let me start at the beginning. Obviously, we don't have a final report yet. Is there any expected timeline when we might see a final report? Is it likely to include additional recommendations than those that have been coming out so far?
Chair, Transportation Safety Board of Canada
I'm always reluctant to give a date, because as soon as you give a date, it's not going to hold true.
This investigation is one of our highest priorities. We have a dedicated team on it. They are working on this and on nothing else. We are in the third phase of three phases of an investigation, which is the analysis and writing of a draft report. Following that, we have certain procedures that we absolutely must follow because they're in our act. That includes circulating a draft and receiving comments. We also have a huge number of laboratory reports that have been completed on this investigation. I think you can understand it's a huge task, but we are working to bring it to the Canadian public as soon as we possibly can.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Very good. I appreciate that. I appreciate the thoroughness with which you're tackling this particular issue.
I want to move to the issue of containment, if you will. With respect to Lac-Mégantic, there was a train that was going downhill, I believe at a considerable speed, prior to the derailment. Does anybody know how fast they would have been going before they derailed?
Chair, Transportation Safety Board of Canada
The people at our lab, the engineers, did an analysis of that, and the speed depends on exactly which car you're talking about and at exactly which point.
Do you recall the average at the beginning?
Kirby Jang Director, Investigations Rail/Pipeline, Transportation Safety Board of Canada
It was 65 miles an hour, in that range.
Chair, Transportation Safety Board of Canada
The top speed was in the range of 65 miles an hour. But as I said earlier, those cars at the end were travelling much more slowly, and except for the last one there, you see that they are every bit as badly damaged as the ones that were travelling fast. So we don't think, and I have seen things in the press that have written off the notion...well, nothing would have withstood that kind of speed. I discount that.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
I wanted to ask that question, actually. Is there a container that could have survived it, and if so, what features would it contain? That would obviously point us to a standard, if you will.
Chair, Transportation Safety Board of Canada
Well, I can't tell you what would have withstood it, but I can tell you that if you have strengthened tank cars, they will hold up much better. The new proposals coming out of the Association of American Railroads are to require strengthening.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
I'd like to clarify your position with respect to the DOT-111 standards. We understand there are essentially two classes of them. We had National Steel Car here talking about the difference between what they called legacy cars and good faith cars. Does the recommendation to phase out the DOT-111s relate exclusively to the older standard of DOT-111s or to the newer DOT-111s as well?
I'm trying to understand what your recommendation actually goes to.
Chair, Transportation Safety Board of Canada
What we're saying to the Minister of Transport is that these cars need to be as tough as they can be. We know that the older cars, the cars that were in Lac-Mégantic, are not strong enough. They do not withstand collisions and derailments, and we've seen this for more than 20 years. We've seen it here and we've seen it in accidents in the United States.
There was a standard put out in 2011, and that standard is stronger than the standard for these older cars; however, we have seen cars that are built to the 2011 standard that are not withstanding derailments either. In particular, they have half-head shields, and we also see damage sometimes to the top of the head of the car.
We've suggested to the minister to take a look at the new standard that's being proposed by the AAR.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
I appreciate that, because the question of phasing out points to the question of where we phase to, if we don't have a new standard. Clearly, if the old DOT-111s are inadequate entirely and the newer DOT-111s have deficiencies, then we have to arrive, especially with our American partners, at what a new standard would be so that we have a comprehensive solution as to where to point the phase-out.
Once that standard is in place, I think we can predict more accurately what the phase-out period will look like.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
I appreciate that.
Emergency response action plans are a very important component, obviously, of the transportation of dangerous goods regime. As we know, I think in large measure because of your efforts to point us in this direction, we are looking at plugging gaps with respect to crude oil. An advisory committee has reported already to the minister, and officials are reviewing their recommendations on an expedited basis. We'll be hearing something about that in the near future.
The question I have for you, and I don't know whether TSB has a position on this or is agnostic on it, is, would you prefer to see separate emergency response action plans developed for classes of oil based on ignition potential or flashpoint? Should Bakken oil be treated differently from, say, Alberta crude that has been thinned with dilbit?
Do you people have a position on that?
Chair, Transportation Safety Board of Canada
I would say generally that you want the emergency response plan to be geared to the risk of the product, but whether you want to divide oil as to which type of oil is a policy decision.
Mr. Jang is going to speak on that.
