Transport Committee on April 2nd, 2019

[The Chair (Hon. Judy A. Sgro (Humber River—Black Creek, Lib.)), Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm calling to order the meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2)—

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Madam Chair, if I could interject for a second, I'd like to propose a motion for the committee to consider. It reads as follows:

That in light of the committee not travelling to Atlantic Canada and Quebec, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure, and Communities conduct no less than 4 meetings to continue their study on a Trade and Transportation Strategy with witnesses from both Atlantic Canada and Quebec and that the Chair be empowered to coordinate the necessary witnesses and schedule.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

This is the motion that you tabled at our last meeting before we took the break. Madam Clerk, it's the exact same as the previous motion he had tabled, so it's in order.

Are there any questions or comments?

Monsieur Aubin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have no objection to either the basics of the motion or the powers that you have to structure our program until the end of the session, which is fast approaching. However, in terms of all the planned studies to be added—that one is not really new, because the study has already been started—I would like us to make sure that we keep the various studies that this committee has proposed and agreed to in chronological order, unless one of those studies is urgent in nature. That is a gentle hint that I do not want our study on passenger safety to be left for the next government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Jeneroux.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I can't believe you're interrupting a committee when there are witnesses here, Churence. I don't know who would do such a thing.

However, I want to propose a friendly amendment to your motion, and hopefully this may help address Mr. Aubin's concern as well. You say “conduct no less than 4 meetings”. If you reduce it to two meetings, I think we could probably get enough of those stakeholders in, plus include a lot of the focus of the study, which I think we all agree is important, and then get unanimous consent for this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

There's an amendment on the floor by Mr. Jeneroux that it be changed to two meetings.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Can I just have clarification on that? Can you repeat it, please, Mr. Jeneroux?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

The motion says “no less than 4 meetings” and Mr. Jeneroux suggested that it be two meetings.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Where it says “conduct no less than 4 meetings”, it would say “no more than 2 meetings”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment negatived)

Now we'll vote on Mr. Rogers' motion.

(Motion agreed to)

We'll have to see how we manage all of this.

Ms. Block.

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

Thank you very much.

Notwithstanding the very important subject that's before us and the fact that we do have witnesses here, given Mr. Rogers is taking the opportunity to table a motion that he put on notice, I would like to take a minute or two to do the same.

This is in regard to the motion that you would have received on March 27. It reads as follows:

Given the recent tragedies involving the Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft and the ongoing investigations, that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities undertake a study of four meetings in regards to Transport Canada’s aircraft certification process including, but not limited to, the nature of Transport Canada’s relationship to the Federal Aviation Administration and other certifying bodies as well as the role of airplane manufacturers in the certification process.

I submit that it's a pretty timely study, given the recent tragedies, and I put that forward for the committee to consider.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Is there any further discussion on the motion?

Mr. Aubin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Once again, I have no problem with the basics of the motion, because I tabled quite a similar motion. However, I do have a problem with the time allocation.

To me, it seems a little hasty to conduct that study without knowing, for example, the findings that may come from the black box data, or those from the FTA in the United States. we will not have all the answers that we are hoping to get, to understand.

Although I am not opposed to the motion, I would put that study a little further down the list of things we are working on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

One suggestion could be that we have our meetings all summer, too. We could clean up a lot of really important issues like this, because it is important.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I'm good with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You were good with that last year.

It's certainly an appropriate motion, for sure.

Not seeing any further discussion, we'll vote on Ms. Block's motion, as she has read it out and it is properly before us.

(Motion negatived)

Thank you very much.

We'll move on to the orders of the day. Our apologies to our really important witnesses, but we have to try to keep business going in the two hours that we have.

From the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board, Ms. Fox is before us again, as well as Jean Laporte, chief operating officer, and Kirby Jang, director of rail and pipeline investigations.

From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police we have Superintendent Jamie Solesme, director of policy and programs, national criminal operations, and Sergeant Trent Entwistle, manager, national collision reconstruction program.

Welcome to all of you and our apologies for the delay.

Ms. Fox, would you open up the discussion, please.

[Kathleen Fox, Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have very brief opening remarks.

Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you for inviting the Transportation Safety Board of Canada today to discuss the topic of bus safety, as the committee undertakes its study on the subject.

This issue has received significant public attention lately, notably in light of fatal accidents such as the Humboldt tragedy in Saskatchewan and the OC Transpo double-decker bus accident here in Ottawa last January.

Road accidents in general, and bus safety in particular, fall outside of the TSB's mandate as defined in the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act.

We would only be involved if a bus accident also involved one of the four modes of transportation specifically mentioned in our enabling legislation, such as in the fatal 2013 collision between an OC Transpo bus and a VIA Rail passenger train. In that accident, TSB identified 15 causal and contributing factors and we issued five recommendations. Three of them were directly related to the safety of buses.

The first of those was for Transport Canada to work in conjunction with the provinces to develop comprehensive guidelines for the installation and use of in-vehicle video monitor displays to reduce the risk of bus driver distraction. The second recommendation was for Transport Canada to develop and implement crashworthiness standards for commercial passenger buses. The third recommendation was for Transport Canada to require a dedicated crashworthy event data recorder on all commercial passenger buses.

The board also issued a safety concern regarding the lack of any recent comprehensive study that specifically deals with the risks associated with all buses stopping at all railway crossings. Although some progress has been made regarding our recommendations, more remains to be done.

In terms of more generalized data on the subject of bus safety, what we have available at the TSB is limited. As I said, the subject is usually beyond our mandate and therefore, we do not collect or analyze information about road accidents or bus safety.

Nevertheless, we are prepared to answer questions to the best of our ability.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Will anyone else from your department be speaking now, Ms. Fox?

[Kathleen Fox]

No, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We will go now to the representative from the RCMP.

You have five minutes, please.

[Superintendent Jamie Solesme, Director of Policy and Programs, National Criminal Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities. Thank you for inviting us here to discuss bus passenger safety from the perspective of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as it relates to collisions and related investigations.

I am Superintendent Jamie Solesme. I am the acting officer in charge, responsible for the national criminal operations section of the RCMP's contract and indigenous policing branch. I am joined here today by Sergeant Trent Entwistle, manager of the national collision reconstruction program within the RCMP'S national traffic services.

By way of context, the RCMP is under contract to provide front-line policing services to all provinces and territories in Canada, with the exception of Ontario and Quebec. This means the RCMP provides policing services across the vast majority of Canada's territory.

Contract policing ensures a consistent quality of service across Canada, but the level of policing services provided in each province and territory ultimately rests with the provincial or territorial governments, as do the objectives, priorities and goals for policing in each of the respective jurisdictions.

Keeping roads safe for Canadians is an important aspect of front-line RCMP officers' efforts irrespective of where they are located.

The RCMP has collision analysts and reconstructionists across the country who use the knowledge and skills they have gained through extensive training opportunities to identify and interpret forensic evidence at collision scenes and to reveal the potential causes. This work contributes to improved road safety for all Canadians.

Collision analysts and reconstructionists obtain their expertise through work in the field and extensive training. To join the program, officers are required to pass an aptitude test and subsequently complete the collision analyst course. Once they obtain practical experience and receive additional collision-specific training, such as pedestrian and bicyclist collision investigation, motorcycle collision investigation and heavy-duty commercial vehicle collision investigation, members are then invited to attend the collision reconstructionist course, which deals with momentum calculations and some more heavily involved investigations.

Investigative efforts around vehicle collisions by these experts include: working with local and provincial governments and highway engineers to discover design flaws in roadways; conducting technical traffic collision investigations and analysis; arranging and guiding mechanical examinations of vehicles involved in collisions; providing advice on traffic collision investigations by interpreting collision investigation evidence and providing expert testimony in court; assisting in division collision investigation training; attempting to determine collision-causing factors of vehicles being investigated; and producing reports based on their observations.

As per the RCMP's national policy on collision analysis and reconstruction, trained RCMP members are called to attend collision scenes that are fatal, where a serious injury has occurred, for files where the RCMP at the scene cannot determine the cause, and/or where a police car was involved.

After a scene is attended, the attending collision analyst-reconstructionist completes an analysis of the evidence gathered and prepares reports outlining their opinions on the cause of the collision. If it is determined that something criminal may have occurred, the files are referred to the Crown for charge recommendations. If there are vehicle defects or failures are suspected, collision analyst-reconstructionists are mandated to contact Transport Canada for further investigation.

In addition, some investigations include collaboration with engineers working with Transport Canada, for instance, in school bus crashes or in the 2018 tragedy involving the Humboldt Broncos hockey team.

When a collision leads to a legal court process, RCMP members attend court to determine if their expertise related to collision analysis and reconstruction can be admitted. If they are qualified as an expert by the court for evidentiary purposes, collision analyst- reconstructionists can provide their opinion as expert evidence, which supplements other evidence provided by officers.

In doing so, the RCMP is able to contribute invaluable expertise to the criminal justice system as it pertains to vehicle collisions, as well as to the overall public interest in road safety. Thus, the collision reconstruction program offers and enables the provision of practical experience in bus safety.

The RCMP remains committed to road safety and will continue its efforts to protect Canadians across the country.

Thank you again for inviting us here today to discuss bus passenger safety. I would be happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thanks very much to all of you.

Ms. Block.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thanks to our witnesses for joining us today for this very important study.

As you noted, Ms. Fox, this issue has received significant public attention in the past year, certainly as a result of the tragedy that took place with the Humboldt Broncos and, as you pointed out, the more recent accident with OC Transpo. I've already learned something through your opening remarks in terms of the role of the TSB when it comes to road accidents and bus safety in particular and what mandate the TSB has in those circumstances.

I am going to drill down just a little in terms of trying to understand what it is that we could possibly glean from your time with us today. I know that we are required to wear seat belts on airplanes during takeoff, landing and taxiing, and during turbulence. I'm just wondering if you could tell me who created that rule. Is it a law or a regulation? Was it the airlines or was it through Transport Canada?