Evidence of meeting #14 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rail.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
My old insurance days suggest that what we're dealing with is exposure: more trains and longer trains create more opportunities for things to happen.
A theme that's been running through my mind as we've heard from the various witnesses is that there seems to be an imbalance between the safety management system approach and the regulatory approach to maintaining safety. We can look at something like operator fatigue. The management of that has been incorporated in safety management systems, and in fact relegated to collective bargaining in some cases. We heard from some of the bargaining units that they would like to see regulations come back to deal with that, because there are distortions that contribute to crew fatigue and therefore to the risk of accidents.
I use that as an example to ask whether, from your point of view, we have the right balance between safety management systems that rely on risk assessments, which you've already indicated could be shaky, and regulation that could be very prescriptive but could be prescriptive on the side of safety.
4:40 p.m.
Chair, Transportation Safety Board of Canada
When safety management systems were implemented—and they've been implemented in rail, marine, and aviation in Canada—they were never ever intended to replace regulation. They were always intended to be an additional layer of oversight within a company because, at the end of the day, you can never have a regulation for every possible situation, and you can never have an inspector overseeing every possible action. At the end of the day, the companies must be responsible for identifying hazards and managing their operational risks, but you need a strong, effective regulator when a company can't do that or doesn't want to do that.
It's not a question of a safety management system or regulation; it's really how they work together. Ideally, a company has an effective way of managing its risks. The regulator is there to oversee and make sure that is doing it, that there is at least a common baseline of regulation that applies to everybody, and that they all work together.
With respect to fatigue in particular, we see fatigue as a hazard in any 24-7 transportation system. We always investigate for it. When we identify it and identify it as a contributing factor, we say that in our reports. There are fatigue regulations that apply to the rail industry. They may need to be revised and updated, but they do have some. At the end of the day, it's also up to companies and bargaining agents to work together and not to allow scheduling practices into collective agreements that are counterproductive from a human fatigue perspective.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
In that case, again, I'm just looking at the issue of balance. Safety management systems, in themselves, give the operators a chance to do that assessment. They should know their operation better than anybody.
What we've heard is discomfort, perhaps, over the resources that Transport Canada has, and how it allocate them between auditing safety management systems and actually getting out and inspecting.
Are you comfortable with that balance?
4:45 p.m.
Chair, Transportation Safety Board of Canada
That's actually part of our watch-list issue, which is multi-modal. That is, all operators should be required to have formal safety management processes, and the regulator has to have a balanced approach to safety. If you see safety management on a continuum, there are some operators who may just have the minimum necessary to meet regulations, and there are others who are very proactive. The system of regulatory oversight has to take into consideration that spectrum of operators, and maybe focus more on inspections for compliance for those operators who have demonstrated that they're not capable of, or are not as effective at, managing their risks, and more audits for those who have demonstrated that they have a mature safety management system.
Absolutely, there has to be a balance between inspections and audits. We've seen definite evidence that it's not there in all modes.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I notice that in your watch-list, most of the calls to action are focused on Transport Canada and not on individual railroads.
4:45 p.m.
Chair, Transportation Safety Board of Canada
Yes, we have made recommendations to individual operators in the past. At the end of the day, most of the regulations come from Transport Canada. Even in the railway industry, where the rules may be developed by the railway industry, they still have to be approved by Transport Canada.
We recognize that Transport has to work with industry. Industry can play a role, and it often can take steps without waiting for regulations to correct safety issues.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
When it comes down to your watch-list and the list of things that remain to be done, most of the focus appears to be on Transport Canada.
In getting back to risk assessments, let's face it, you can know your organization perhaps a little too well and overlook risks. Is there a role, perhaps, for independent risk assessments to be done of railroads?
4:45 p.m.
Chair, Transportation Safety Board of Canada
I'm not sure how that would work. Certainly, there's value in that. Many companies will bring in third-party auditors to take an outside look, but then there's also the role of Transport Canada in doing that.
What we've seen is that where companies are journeying along that continuum of maturity toward effective safety management, they may need to bring in outside expertise to help them build on their capacity to do effective risk assessments.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much for being here. I have a lot of questions for you, but we don't have a lot of time, unfortunately. You can appreciate that, as the member for the Lac-Mégantic region, I have a lot to discuss with you.
First of all, I want to discuss credibility. I noted during your presentation that your organization's credibility is very important. In Lac-Mégantic, we are having trouble trusting all rail safety authorities.
Further to the analysis of the recommendations made with regard to the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, has the Transportation Safety Board considered reaching out to the community to report on the follow-up to the recommendations and the responses received?
4:45 p.m.
Chair, Transportation Safety Board of Canada
Further to our recommendations, we did contact the City of Lac-Mégantic. In our annual report last year, we put together the recommendations and communications regarding safety at Lac-Mégantic, since we had promised city representatives to keep them informed of the follow-up to our recommendations and the progress made by the department.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Among the recommendations in the report, the response on four of them was assessed as “satisfactory intent“. The term “satisfactory intent” does not mean much to the people I represent.
Can you explain what satisfactory intent means for the people who read that in the follow-up to the recommendations?
4:45 p.m.
Chair, Transportation Safety Board of Canada
When the department responds to one of our recommendations, we assess the response to see if there is a plan, timelines. We also have to see if the plan implemented will actually address the reported deficiency. If so, the response is assessed as “satisfactory intent”, which means that, if the plan is implemented, it will address the deficiency and the risks we had identified.
Quite often, if we find progress is too slow, we change this rating. Two years ago, for example, we informed the department that we were no longer prepared to wait years. After a certain amount of time, we reduce the rating to “unsatisfactory intent”. We did this for a number of recommendations, simply because it was taking too long.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Would it be possible to give us the priority of interventions in order to help the government act quickly and resolve the problems? What would be the order of priority of the recommendations you made to the government regarding Lac-Mégantic?
4:50 p.m.
Chair, Transportation Safety Board of Canada
Actually, there are four remaining recommendations relating to the Lac-Mégantic accident. I cannot say one is more important than the other.
First of all, tank cars transporting flammable liquids, such as crude oil, must be stronger. We know that regulations are in effect, but we are concerned about the timelines because we might have to wait until 2025 before all the deficient cars are withdrawn.
The second recommendation pertains to risk analysis. We are waiting to see if this will indeed be effective.
The third group of recommendations pertains to prevention and ways of preventing runaway cars.
The fourth recommendations pertains to Transport Canada's oversight.
I could not say that one recommendation is more important than another. They are all important since a range of measures is needed to reduce the risk of another accident like the one in Lac-Mégantic.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
It is true that a combination of factors led to this tragedy. It was not just one thing, as you showed very well in your report.
In your opinion then, could concrete steps be taken quickly to reduce the risk of this kind of accident happening again?
4:50 p.m.
Chair, Transportation Safety Board of Canada
Yes, exactly. In my comments, I recommended that the committee consider the need for an accelerated process in the case of regulations pertaining to safety.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Thank you very much.
We went through that quickly, you answered my questions.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much to our witnesses for coming today. Thank you for your ongoing commitment and the work that you do to ensure the safety of Canadians and others.
We'll suspend very quickly for our other witnesses to come up.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I am calling the meeting back to order.
We now have witnesses from the Department of Transport. We have Laureen Kinney, assistant deputy minister for safety and security; Brigitte Diogo, director general for rail safety; and Benoit Turcotte, acting director general.
Welcome, and thank you very much for coming this afternoon.
Ms. Kinney, would you like to lead off?
4:55 p.m.
Laureen Kinney Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Department of Transport
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I don't have any intention of making a formal presentation. I just want to thank you for the opportunity to appear again. I look forward to your report when the study is finished. We will leave all of the time for questions by your committee.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much. That is very helpful.
No doubt everyone has a lot of questions, as we move forward to the closing of this railway study.
Mrs. Block, go ahead.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
I would like to welcome our departmental officials back. I am sure we will be hearing from you many times over the course of this Parliament and the work of this committee.
Earlier, we heard from the Canadian Transportation Agency, and of course, you know that we have just heard from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. I had the opportunity to ask them a question about the process, in terms of risk assessments, whereby a railway assesses an issue and informs Transport Canada, rather than the other way around.
What I would like to ask is, can you give us examples of major changes in operations for which a railway provided Transport Canada with a risk assessment in the past 12 months?