Transport Committee on Dec. 4th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

I want to thank you again. We've asked way more questions of you than of many witnesses because your answers are so succinct and to the point that there isn't a whole lot of time wasted listening to your answers. I appreciate that.

You have indicated that Transport Canada has given you their plans and that we should be monitoring their implementation of those plans. Can we get a copy of Transport Canada's reports back to on their plans for meeting the recommendations you've made?

[Michael Ferguson]

I guess I'm surprised that they have not been provided to the committee. I'll have to—

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Not that I'm aware of.

[Michael Ferguson]

We'd have to follow up on that, but if they haven't been supplied to the committee, I'm assuming it's Transport's intention to supply them to the committee.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Okay.

[Michael Ferguson]

It's something that should come from Transport, but we can certainly follow up on that with them.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Okay. Because they were written to you, not to us...but thank you.

With regard to the risk analysis that they have or haven't done, we talked earlier about the fact that the number of railroads they have to oversee is going to more than double. In addition, over the period of time of your study, the amount of crude oil—which now we learn is very flammable crude oil—that has been transported by rail has gone from 500 carloads a year to 200,000 a year, or more.

Is that an example of the risk analysis that Transport Canada ought to be doing to determine whether or not a greater level of supervision of the SMS processes is necessary, as they apply to that kind of great increase in dangerous goods transport?

[Michael Ferguson]

The particular example we used in the chapter was that they were not taking into consideration in the risk assessments the routes that were being used to transport dangerous goods. Certainly, the fashion in which dangerous goods are transported would be another risk factor they need to consider. All of those types of things are examples of risk identification and, from risk identification, then Transport can determine what audits they need to do of what aspects.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Earlier, I asked you why the recommendations had not yet been put in place. You said you weren't given an answer.

In your view, could the reason be simply a lack of resources?

[Michael Ferguson]

The recommendations? I'm trying to remember the previous question exactly, but in terms of the recommendations....

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

I'm referring to the 2007 recommendations.

[Michael Ferguson]

Of the committee and the panel and that sort of thing.... Again, what we did in that situation was that we looked at the recommendations. We went to Transport Canada and we asked what they had done with relation to them. They gave us their assessment. We looked at their assessment and, in conversation with them, determined that even on some of the ones they said they had completed, they really still have some more work to do.

Again, I can't try to say why it's taken them so long to deal with some of the issues. That's really a question they have to answer. We're just bringing up the fact that some of these things were brought forward a number of years ago, and they still haven't solved them.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

On the one hand, a number of recommendations have yet to be put in place, but on the other hand, the transportation of dangerous goods by rail has increased. Unfortunately, budgets have not followed suit. Transport Canada needs to analyze its resources. What's more, it will probably need to increase inspections, given that a much larger volume of dangerous goods will be transported by rail. It will also need to provide training. In fact, you said that 40% of inspectors didn't have the necessary training.

In your opinion, is it realistic to think all that can be taken care of by 2016?

[Michael Ferguson]

Again, it's really a question for the department to answer.

Certainly, though, one of the things we wanted to make sure that we brought out in this chapter is the fact that their environment was changing, that they are going to be responsible for the oversight of more activity, and that we have identified that they've had trouble getting to where they need to be. When you put all of those things together, you see that the challenge isn't getting smaller. The challenge is getting bigger.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

I'll ask this in English.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I'm sorry. Your time has expired.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

I gather that they hinted at the fact that they need more resources. That's just what I wanted to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay. You got your statement in. Thank you.

We now move to Mr. McGuinty for five minutes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Ferguson, I have a couple of quick questions. If I can, I'm going to try here, in very plain English, to summarize some of the highlights of your report for Canadians.

Just to confirm, in the three-year period you audited, not a single audit was done of VIA Rail.

[Michael Ferguson]

Not a single audit. There would have been inspections.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Not a single audit: four million passengers a year, that's 12 million passengers in three years, and there was not a single audit of VIA Rail.

[Michael Ferguson]

No audit was done of VIA Rail in that three-year period. There would have been inspections.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

For Canadians watching and reading, you say that the scopes of the audits themselves are very limited in nature. Correct?

[Michael Ferguson]

We identified that the scopes were limited, yes.