Transport Committee on Feb. 21st, 2019

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We have a Minister of Transport whose trademark is to repeat as often as possible that safety is his top priority. We would like to believe him, but what I am seeing among Canadians is that they have more trust in the TSB, which has a semblance of neutrality, than the minister.

You have said twice today that three of the five recommendations provided in the report on the accident in Lac-Mégantic have not been acted upon, and I am concerned by that. I would like you to remind us which recommendations they are.

I would also like you to explain to us what the meaning of certain comments in your report is, in a lingo specific to you, regarding the current status of a recommendation—“fully satisfactory”, “satisfactory in part” and “satisfactory intent”.

To me, “satisfactory intent” means that no actions have been taken and “satisfactory in part” means that a step in the right direction has been taken, but the issue has not been resolved. The status “fully satisfactory” would satisfy me, as well, but I have a feeling that we are far from it.

[Kathleen Fox]

Allow me to reiterate the three recommendations stemming from the investigation into the accident at Lac-Mégantic that are still active.

The first recommendation concerns tank cars. We wanted the tank cars used to transport oil or flammable liquids to be as crash-resistant as possible. A lot of progress has been made in that area, but the recommendation is active because oil is still being transported in other kinds of tank cars than those meeting the latest standards.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Safety standards.

[Kathleen Fox]

The second recommendation involved measures to prevent train derailment.

Measures were taken following the Lac-Mégantic accident. Changes were made to the rules for securing parked and unattended trains. I'm going to come back to your other question in a moment.

The third recommendation concerned oversight of railway safety management systems, as well as auditing and inspections.

Those are the three outstanding recommendations. Despite the significant progress that's been made and the measures that have been taken, the deficiencies have not been fully addressed. We are waiting to see what the next steps will be.

Now I'll talk about how we rate the department's response to the recommendations.

Take, for instance, the emergency response assistance plans that were put in place after the Lac-Mégantic accident. Given that the department acted immediately on our recommendation in a manner that was fully satisfactory, we designated the recommendation as closed.

When the department or Minister of Transport announces a plan that, in our view, will remedy the deficiency once implemented, we assess the response as having “satisfactory intent”, but we don't designate the recommendation as closed until the plan has been fully implemented. If the board considers that the plan will only partially correct the deficiency, we assess the response as being “satisfactory in part”. The measures taken to prevent train derailment are a case in point. We still have concerns regarding the steps the department has taken to date because they may not be adequate to eliminate the risk completely.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

On that very issue, I would point to another train derailment that occurred in the past few weeks. The train wasn't transporting anything flammable, but the problem is the same. The minister responded, but after the fact.

In light of the fact that measures weren't taken until after the Lac-Mégantic derailment and subsequent to a number of other train derailments, can we really say that the department is doing enough? Do you think the recently announced measures are satisfactory or only satisfactory in part?

[Kathleen Fox]

Problems linked to uncontrolled and unplanned movements or runaway trains can be attributed to three factors. The first is a loss of control, as was the case in the Field accident. The train was attended, but for reasons yet to be determined, it derailed. The second factor is a change in car distribution in the yard. The third factor concerns unattended and improperly secured cars, as was also the case in the Lac-Mégantic incident.

Each of those factors has to be examined to determine whether the measures taken will reduce the risk of a train or some of its cars derailing, but we aren't there yet.

[Jean Laporte]

I'd like to add something, Mr. Aubin, if I may.

We assess all of our outstanding recommendations on an annual basis. In fact, we are working on that right now. In late March or early April, the cycle will come to an end. Transport Canada provides us with updates on all the recommendations. We will reassess them over the next two months, and the findings will be made public in April or May.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to our witnesses for providing that valuable information.

We will now suspend for a few minutes until our next panel comes to the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm calling the meeting back to order.

Welcome to our witnesses.

From the Department of Transport, we have Kevin Brosseau, Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security; Brigitte Diogo, Director General, Rail Safety; and Benoit Turcotte, Director General, Transportation of Dangerous Goods.

Thank you all very much. I'll turn the floor over to you folks.

[Kevin Brosseau, Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Kevin Brosseau. As mentioned, I'm the assistant deputy minister of safety and security at Transport Canada. I am joined by Brigitte Diogo, the director general of rail safety, and Benoit Turcotte, the director general of transportation of dangerous goods. Given that our time today is short, I will keep my opening remarks similarly short to ensure that we have sufficient time for your questions.

Canada maintains one of the safest rail transportation systems in the world as a result of shared efforts between numerous partners, including other levels of government, railway companies, the TSB, as you just heard, and communities.

Transport Canada remains committed to improving public safety as it relates to the transport of dangerous goods by rail.

Transport Canada takes its leadership role seriously, and has a rigorous and robust rail safety regulatory framework and oversight program in place. We've taken significant actions to enhance public safety during the transport of dangerous goods by rail, including flammable liquids by rail, under the pillars of prevention, effective response and accountability. I'll list a few of these actions. They include reducing permitted train speed and accelerating older tank phase-out timelines for the transport of crude oil. In addition, the department has implemented new requirements related to liability and compensation, classification and emergency response, means of containment standards, and additional inspections in key route and key train requirements. Through these actions and 33,000 oversight activities per year, and others, Transport Canada is committed to promoting a rail safety culture in order to keep Canadians safe.

With those words, we look forward to taking your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Brosseau.

Ms. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you for being here. You're helping us make the most of this very brief half-hour that we have with you today. As I commented to the earlier panel, I appreciate that we're here as a result of a motion that was brought forward by my colleague Mr. Aubin. I made the observation in the last panel that I think it's a timely briefing—I won't necessarily call it a “study”—in light of the three recent derailments in as many weeks. One was tragic in the loss of life that was experienced.

To follow along the same line of questions I had for the previous witnesses, are you familiar with the August 2015 report by the Fraser Institute comparing pipeline and rail safety records?

[Kevin Brosseau]

I personally am not, but I'll turn to my colleagues before we answer as a department.

[Benoit Turcotte, Director General, Transportation of Dangerous Goods, Department of Transport]

I am not familiar with the report.

[Brigitte Diogo, Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport]

I am.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Can you tell me, Ms. Diogo, if, in your opinion, the Fraser Institute's research and conclusions are accurate?

[Brigitte Diogo]

I think the report makes some very good points in terms of the analysis it conducted, but as an official of the department, I'm not able to comment on whether it was a good report or not. We took a look at the report.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

I know there often is a misunderstanding in terms of where pipelines fall and under which department they fall. I know they fall under the Department of Natural Resources. Oftentimes, people think they fall under Transport because it's transporting a commodity. I'm wondering if you have conversations with the Department of Natural Resources around the issues of transporting oil by rail or by pipeline, or if you work closely together on those issues.

[Brigitte Diogo]

We work closely in the sense that we share information. I think Natural Resources has a lot of information that feeds into our work in terms of volumes of goods that are being transported. I think in the past they were exchanging in terms of “is rail better or is pipeline better”. I think the conclusion is that no matter what the mode of transportation is, it needs to be made safely. That's where, as government officials, our emphasis should be: that regardless, it needs to be made safely.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

I appreciate that. It was going to be my next question.

In the previous Parliament, I was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, and I know that pipelines have a safety record of 99.99%. That would have been in 2013 to 2015. I think rail had a 99.997% safety record. There's not a lot of difference. However, I think that for most of us, we believe that you would want to see oil transported through a pipeline rather than on rail, for any number of issues, not the least of which is the accidents that can occur when a train derails.

I'm wondering as well if you would comment on the fact that most of the safety recommendations on the active rail transportation, on the watchlist, are directed at the Department of Transport. I'm wondering if you can comment on whether or not you believe that there is a lack of resources to do all the things that could and should be done in order to protect Canadians.

[Kevin Brosseau]

I'll start and then turn it over to my colleagues, who are both responsible for their particular sector so that we're driving the priorities forward.

Organizationally, Transport, like every other government department, manages its resources based on the priorities that are set and uses the resources that it has, delivering on a risk-based approach, a priority-based approach. Of course, we know that addressing the watchlist issues and responding to the TSB recommendations, which we take very seriously, are a priority area and accrue resources accordingly. I'll turn it over to my colleagues, who perhaps will be able to put a finer point on that.

[Benoit Turcotte]

It's a very good question. I would say that the government has invested heavily in both the rail safety program and the TDG safety program since the tragedy of Lac-Mégantic.

Our resources in terms of our ability to examine the risks in the transportation of dangerous goods system have been increased. Our program size has more or less tripled. This has allowed us to do tremendous things in terms of examining what those risks are in the transportation of dangerous goods system.

We know that crude oil remains one of the higher risks that we have identified as a program. The volumes will fluctuate. As a program, we're very conscious of that. We do look at the volumes of crude oil being shipped. We've tripled the number of inspections we conduct, from about 2,000 pre-Mégantic to about 6,000 on a yearly basis, ongoing. We're very proud of that.

I would say that we do have enough resources in the transportation of dangerous goods program to fulfill our basic mandate to properly regulate and oversee the transportation of the dangerous goods system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I really did want to ask Mr. DeJong a question with respect to multimodal strategies and program integration, but apparently he's not here. I'm going to attempt to ask you three the question, and hopefully you can help me out.

As you may know, I had the privilege yesterday on behalf of the committee to table a report essentially moving toward a Canadian transportation and logistics strategy. In the process of authoring that report, we recognized strategic areas in our travels throughout Canada, essentially located in the Niagara and Vancouver and Seattle areas. I learned a lot. As I said earlier, what we learned most was the identification of those strategic trade corridor areas within the nation.

With that said, Niagara was identified as a strategic trade corridor. Within the Niagara region, as you can well appreciate, over time there are areas that were identified under official plans at the municipal level allowed to grow in an industrial manner, but over time, they became more of a residential area that is attached to an industrial area.

Right now I'm working with one situation in the city of Thorold, where we have a shunting yard that is literally right next to a water course, an aquifer, as well as a residential area. I have received a lot of, not only complaints, but also concerns with respect to safety in that area because of what's being shunted by trains and, of course, what those trains are carrying. There are concerns relative to noise, safety and so forth, which I'm sure you can well appreciate.

How do I successfully facilitate with, in this case CN, a solution to relocate that shunting yard? By the way, it was relocated from another area, and then the problem just moved to that area. How do I successfully facilitate with that partner, CN Rail, a more appropriate area of relocation for the shunting yard?

[Brigitte Diogo]

It's very similar to issues that many communities across Canada are raising in terms of the concern of proximity to rail operations. I think CN has a whole infrastructure in terms of how to conduct community engagement. I would say that the best approach would be to connect to CN at the most senior level.

I also think that, when it comes to issues of noise and vibration, the Canadian Transportation Agency is also a good venue to bring some of these issues forward. They have the mandate to examine these types of issues.