Evidence of meeting #33 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 inspection.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Laureen Kinney  Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
Martin Eley  Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport
Luc Bourdon  Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport

8:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

We're ready to start our meeting.

To our witnesses from the department, thank you very much for being here: Ms. Girard, Ms. Kinney, Mr. Bourdon, and Mr. Eley.

I understand you have some remarks, so I'll turn it over to Ms. Kinney.

8:55 a.m.

Laureen Kinney Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport

Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to address the committee today.

My name is Laureen Kinney. I am the assistant deputy minister for safety and security at Transport Canada. With me today is Luc Bourdon, our director general of rail safety; Nicole Girard, the acting director general of transportation of dangerous goods; and Martin Eley, the director general of civil aviation.

In the context of your study of Canada's transportation system, we are pleased to appear before the committee to discuss measures taken by Transport Canada to improve rail safety and transportation of dangerous goods following the tragic events last July in Lac-Mégantic. In the 11 months since then, rail and transportation of dangerous goods safety has been our top priority. We have received valuable input on this matter from the Office of the Auditor General and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. We also look forward to the first report from this committee's study.

I will focus my remarks today on three areas. The first is the actions that Transport Canada has taken to improve rail safety and transportation of dangerous goods following, as I said, the tragic events last July. The second area is the regulatory and oversight regimes that we continue to develop and strengthen in rail safety and in all modes of transportation. Finally, I will focus on measures that we are considering to ensure that rail companies strengthen their shipping and safety practices through enhanced safety management systems. Taken together, these measures demonstrate Transport Canada's commitment to improve rail safety and the transportation of dangerous goods by strengthening regulation and oversight of this sector.

First, with regard to the measures taken since Lac-Mégantic, following that accident Transport Canada issued a series of directives for railway companies and shippers and importers of dangerous goods to follow regarding the safety and security of their operations in the transport of dangerous goods. The first directive, on July 23, outlined a number of requirements related to the operation of trains carrying dangerous goods, train securement, directional controls, and braking procedures.

In subsequent measures, companies importing or transporting crude oil were directed to conduct classification testing of that oil, to make the results available to Transport Canada, and to provide any updated data to the department’s Canadian transport emergency centre, or CANUTEC.

The department also directed railway operators to share data about the dangerous goods they shipped with municipalities so they could properly plan for emergencies and be properly trained to respond in the event of a spill.

On April 23 the minister announced measures to address interim recommendations from the TSB. These include removing up to 5,000 older DOT-111 tank cars immediately from dangerous goods service and announcing the phase-out or refitting of certain cars not meeting these most recent standards. Transport Canada continues to work with industry and with U.S. regulators to develop even further enhancements to DOT-111 tank cars. Canada is committed to meeting or exceeding all new U.S. requirements for those tank cars.

We also required rail shippers to develop emergency response assistance plans to address shipping of higher-risk flammable liquids, and issued an emergency directive requiring railway companies to immediately slow trains transporting dangerous goods and implement other key operating practices.

The minister also announced the creation of an emergency assistance response plan task force, which will look into issues such as roles and responsibilities of all players in the use of incident command systems, and reviewing other flammable liquids to determine if any others require an emergency response assistance plan.

The second area is strengthening the regulatory and oversight regimes. Transport Canada is currently accelerating the development of several regulations to strengthen the rail safety and transportation of dangerous goods federal regulatory regime, in part in response to recommendations from the Transportation Safety Board and the Auditor General, as well as those arising from the Rail Safety Act review and recommendations from this committee.

We have already prepublished four proposed regulations this year in the Canada Gazette, part I.

Those regulations include the proposed new tank car standard requiring DOT-111 tank cars to be built with thicker steel, head-shield protection, and top-fitting protection. Industry is already building tank cars to this new enhanced standard. As well, the grade crossing regulations are to improve safety by helping to reduce the frequency and severity of accidents at federally regulated grade crossings. The railway operating certificate regulations are to ensure that railway companies maintain the highest level of safety. The railway safety administrative monetary penalties regulations, which will introduce fines of up to $250,000, are to strengthen our ability to enforce safety requirements for railway companies that violate the Railway Safety Act.

We are also working to prepublish other related regulations in the Canada Gazette in the near future.

Along with this committee, the Transportation Safety Board, and the Office of the Auditor General's advice, the department continues to work with key stakeholders such as the Advisory Council on Railway Safety, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods General Policy Advisory Council, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, among others, to gain valuable input that informs the measures we're taking. For example, we fully accepted all of the recommendations on rail safety from the 2013 Auditor General's report, and are implementing a detailed action plan to respond to the issues that were raised.

I would also like to take this opportunity to mention the important progress that we have made in implementing the recommendations of the Auditor General in the area of civil aviation, stemming from both their 2008 and 2012 audits. Through our aggressive management action plans, we have been able to address 18 of the 19 recommendations made from these audits, and are on track to finalize the last step on one of those recommendations.

Highlights from our action plans related to these audits include putting in place a process to address complex safety issues faster, standardizing the tools, documentation, and management oversight used to support inspections, and developing a robust human resources strategy.

Finally, moving forward with SMS, safety management systems, ultimately rail and TDG, transportation of dangerous goods, safety will depend on the various rail companies that transport these goods and the people who work for those companies. The best tool we have to help build a culture of safety in these companies is the safety management system, or SMS.

A safety management system is a formal framework to help a company integrate safety into its day-to-day operations. Simply put, it's a series of rules, responsibilities, and procedures that aim to achieve certain goals and performance targets, and which can be monitored and evaluated.

Safety management systems are not deregulation or self-regulation. Companies using them must identify how they will comply with specific regulations and how they would meet these standards. As SMS will play an important role in the future of rail and the transportation of dangerous goods, Transport Canada expects this year to update and clarify how SMS can help accomplish this in railway company operations. Given that the rail industry, the Auditor General, and the Transportation Safety Board have all endorsed or commented favourably on SMS regulations, we also expect to implement more rigorous enforcement provisions, along with the regulations to strengthen the use of SMS in rail safety.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, Transport Canada recognizes that we must continue to improve our safety programs for rail and dangerous goods. Just as Minister Raitt has announced measures to address the TSB's interim recommendations regarding the Lac-Mégantic incident, we will also look forward to the related input from this committee. I'm confident that such information will assist Transport Canada's ongoing risk-based rail safety program, and our efforts to maintain the Canadian railway system as one of the safest in the world.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. We would be pleased to take your questions.

9 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

That is it for the presentation; very good.

Mr. Sullivan, for seven minutes.

9 a.m.

NDP

Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON

We've been discussing aviation safety for the past couple of weeks, so I'm a little surprised that you're focusing entirely on rail. I'll start with one question about rail.

There's one recommendation from the TSB that has still not been implemented, as far as I know, and that was route management. I understand that Transport Canada's directive to the railroads is they themselves should undertake a risk analysis to determine the risk of running dangerous goods through highly populated areas, and that they themselves should determine what speed would be safe based on their own analysis of the risk. I'm surprised that Transport Canada isn't doing that themselves.

Can you explain where we are on that? Are we going to find DOT-111 cars breaking up in heavily populated areas again, or is Transport Canada taking definitive action with the railroads to have that risk analysis done within the next few weeks?

9:05 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport

Laureen Kinney

Transport Canada is taking quick action on all of the recommendations of the Auditor General in relation to rail safety. We have a management action plan that's put forward dates that are designed to be as aggressive as possible, recognizing that some of these areas need technical work. Those are well under way and we are meeting all commitments. We have put in place a strong oversight system to address those.

In terms of risk assessments, the Auditor General recommended that we incorporate risk assessments from railways, which cover a broad variety of issues, into Transport Canada's risk assessment of the entire sector. That will require some further data information regulations, and it will require some systems integration, but those are well under way.

In the meantime, and as part of our normal program, our inspectors and our staff do look at the risk assessments provided by the railway companies. They look to see whether or not the risk assessments are fulsome, whether they've identified mitigating measures for various areas, and then follow up on how those have been addressed.

9:05 a.m.

NDP

Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON

In other words, you don't have an answer to my specific question about the recommendation by the Transportation Safety Board that there be risk assessments of the routes that the railroad companies are taking and the speed at which the trains are travelling through heavily populated areas.

Because you don't have an answer, I'll move from that to flight safety. I'm assuming there is somebody here who can talk about that.

The accident rate target per 100,000 flight hours has been going up according to Transport Canada's own report on plans and priorities. The target rate was 6.3 in 2010, and in 2014-15, the most current year, it's 6.7. That is predicted to be an increase of 40 to 50 flight accidents over the course of four years.

Why is Transport Canada allowing our airspace to become less safe?

9:05 a.m.

Martin Eley Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport

The reality is the numbers are actually a lot better than that, and it's a hard thing to predict. One of the challenges we have is that as a safety rate has to be very low, it is subject to a lot of fluctuation. One accident can actually make quite difference in the number because the rate is low. It's sort of a statistical anomaly. We're focused more on the longer-term average. That continues to decline.

9:05 a.m.

NDP

Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON

Well, no, this is the long-term average, and you are predicting it will go up. It was at five. It is now at 6.7. In 2010, the actual rate was 5.9. In 2012-13, the actual rate was 6.1. It has gone up. There have been more collisions. There have been more accidents in the air or involving aircraft.

Why is Transport Canada plotting and planning to allow this to go up? That doesn't make any sense to me or to Canadians.

9:05 a.m.

Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport

Martin Eley

The plan is not to have it increase. The targets are meant to be realistic, in terms of what's achievable. We've consistently done better than target. That's still what we're trying to do. When we put those estimates in there, they need to be realistic. We have to look at the rates.

9:05 a.m.

NDP

Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON

So [Technical Difficulty—Editor] are they realistic? What is causing the increase in accidents per 100,000 flight hours? Is it the implementation of SMS and the failure of Transport Canada to actually enforce regulations? What is causing it?

9:05 a.m.

Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport

Martin Eley

The way to look at the numbers, and the way we look at them, is to take the TSB data. That is not showing a long-term increase in the numbers. There are fluctuations, as there are with any statistics, but the numbers are not actually increasing. What we put in, in terms of our targets, isn't necessarily the rate we're targeting, so there is some conservatism in there. I'll admit that. But it's really about the accident rate as the real evidence, and that continues to decline.

9:05 a.m.

NDP

Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON

Well, it didn't. It went up. Between 2010-11 and 2012-13 it went up, and your prediction is that it will continue to go up.

I'm not getting a straight answer.

On the incident reporting, the Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Reporting System has shown a steady increase in the number of incidents between 2003-04, when SMS was implemented, and 2013, from about 8,000 to about 17,000 incidents.

The number of Transport Canada inspector referrals has gone down from 15% of those to about 5% of those. The amount of enforcement has gone down significantly. There is very little, if any, enforcement of Transport Canada regulations. Following the Ornge helicopter crash, for example, the only enforcement being done is by the Ministry of Labour. There is no enforcement being done by Transport Canada of Transport Canada's own regulations. Of the portions of the act that require that Ornge helicopters run safe aircraft, Transport Canada could be prosecuting, could be enforcing its own regulations. It is not. It has been left to Labour Canada to do that.

I want to know why Transport Canada is not bothering to enforce its own regulations.

9:10 a.m.

Director General, Civil Aviation, Department of Transport

Martin Eley

I'll start with a response to the comment regarding Ornge.

Labour Canada and Transport Canada have two different mandates. They're both valid. In fact, we have applied monetary penalties to Ornge. Certainly, if further evidence comes from the TSB, we will respond to that. We went in there. We did inspections. Some things were corrected. We did apply monetary penalties. ESDC is working under a different mandate, in that they deliver their program in accordance with their regulations. So we work together, but we're independent authorities.

9:10 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport

Laureen Kinney

If would add to that, to make it very clear, that Transport Canada does take enforcement action across the board, in terms of civil aviation. A number of administrative monetary penalties are filed, and corrective actions are put in place for specific issues, and those actions are taken on a regular basis.

9:10 a.m.

NDP

Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON

Since SMS has taken over, the number of enforcement actions by Transport Canada has dropped. In 2009 it was zero. It was 23 in 2004, but in 2009 it was zero; in 2010 it was three; in 2011 it was two.

Why is enforcement dropping so fast? Is it because you don't have enough staff to do the enforcement?

9:10 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport

Laureen Kinney

No, not at all. It's because the system has been changing. In particular, statistics of those small numbers are not eligible for an assessment from year to year. But certainly, in the situation where there is a compliance issue that needs to be addressed, we take various actions. They range from letters, from corrective action plans in regard to particular safety issues that may be a mix of compliance issues and other issues.... We do take administrative monetary penalties. We don't hesitate to give companies notice of suspension if their corrective actions are not taken in a timely manner. Their operations would be halted if they were not correcting their issues quickly.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Mr. McGuinty, you have seven minutes.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Good morning, everyone. Thanks for coming.

First of all, I never got an answer to this question I put to the minister in committee of the whole: How many qualified system auditors are on staff presently? In the report, the Auditor General says there are 10, when the department says it needs 20, minimum.

Can we have an answer? How many qualified system auditors do you have now for SMS under rail safety?

9:10 a.m.

Luc Bourdon Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport

As we speak, about 95% of all our inspectors have been trained as SMS auditors, so it's about 100 now.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

About 100 are SMS qualified?

9:10 a.m.

Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport

Luc Bourdon

At the time of the audit, we had 67% that had been trained for SMS, and I think it was 77% for audit. By the end of this month, everyone will have received the training.

9:10 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport

Laureen Kinney

If I can just clarify, I think the numbers you're talking about are the people who are part of a separate group that supports the broader audit community in the regions in the rail safety group. There are set individuals who actually are specialized in doing SMS audits, and then the inspectorate group as a whole is trained and qualified to carry out inspections and audits. Those are the people Luc was referring to. We do have a very strong complement and there's no lack of numbers of people able to do [Technical difficulty—Editor].

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Would you be able to provide that in writing to the committee? The last document we received in writing, I sent to the Auditor General's office. The Auditor General's response to me was basically that they are not in a position to provide any level of assurance on the information recently provided by Transport Canada officials. Therefore, could you undertake to provide the details for us? That would be very helpful.

My second question goes to the DOT cars. I also asked the minister, when she announced that the DOT cars would be phased out within three years, what analysis, data, or evidence she relied on. What was prepared by you? Her answer was that they relied on their officials:

With that report, consultations took place with industry through my officials, and that is where the development of this standard came from and that is where the development of this data came from, and we are comfortable with this.

Could you please provide for this committee all the analysis that was prepared to substantiate this announcement by the minister? Do you have it available?

9:10 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport

Laureen Kinney

First of all, what the analysis included was a whole variety of different pieces of input. Primarily, of course, was the Transportation Safety Board's interim recommendation that this needed to be done. There had been ongoing work in great depth between our officials at Transport Canada and regulatory officials in the Department of Transport—

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

There were, Ms. Kinney, but can you prepare a document, please? Can you submit to this committee the analysis, the evidence, and the projections that were prepared by the department for the minister in order for her to announce this new regulation setting new standards?

Do you have that available for us?