Transport Committee on March 21st, 2016

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

I'll call the sixth meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities together. Welcome, everybody.

Mr. Godin, welcome on your side.

Ms. Dabrusin, thank you for filling in today.

We have our parliamentary secretary, Ms. Kate Young, who is attending the meeting as well today.

I'm going to turn it over to our representatives from the Department of Transport. We're doing a very important study, and I'll look at exactly what's been done since the last time you were before the committee.

We have Laureen Kinney, the assistant deputy minister, safety and security; Brigitte Diogo, director general, rail safety; and Nicole Girard, director general, transportation of dangerous goods.

Welcome. We're glad to have you here.

Ms. Kinney, or whoever would like to go forward, go ahead, please.

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

Good afternoon, and thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to begin by thanking the committee for the opportunity to speak today about the work we are doing to continuously improve railroad safety for all Canadians.

Rail safety and the safe transportation of dangerous goods by rail is a priority for Transport Canada. The department has a rigorous and robust oversight regime in place to monitor compliance with rules, regulations, and standards through audits and inspections, and to manage safety issues on an ongoing basis. The department does not hesitate to take enforcement measures when required.

The Transport Canada rail safety oversight program includes conducting audits and inspections. These oversight activities are planned annually, reviewed regularly, and revised as required using evidence-based risk indicators. Common risk indicators include accident investigations, safety records, results of previous inspections, and safety studies. The department is on track to complete approximately 33,400 rail oversight activities in 2015-16, which represent a 4% increase compared with 2014-15. The year is not yet complete.

Overall, Madam Chair, in addition to the oversight activities conducted by Transport Canada every year, the rail safety regime has at its core a requirement that railway companies have a safety management system in place for integrating safety into day-to-day railway operations.

An SMS requires railways to take responsibility for managing the safety of their operations by identifying safety concerns, assessing the level of risk they represent, and taking measures to mitigate those risks, where required, while building a safety consciousness into their day-to-day operations at all levels of the company. This is also achieved by involving company employees in all the processes of the system, either by consulting with them, communicating to them, or keeping them informed on risks found and how they have been dealt with, and by allowing employees to report safety issues to the company.

A safety management system does not replace the rail safety regulatory regime. It is supplementary and complementary to it. Companies must continue to meet the requirements set out in the Railway Safety Act, as well as all the other associated regulations, rules, and engineering standards. The regulations do not replace, suppress, or precede the act or its other instruments. Safety management systems are intended to enhance safety by having companies put formal systems in place to proactively identify and address safety concerns, measure the risks they represent, and implement remedial action to mitigate those risks. Companies are expected to identify and manage their safety risks before Transport Canada's intervention and before major railway safety issues arise. Transport Canada remains committed to continually improving the rail safety regime in Canada and the safe and secure transportation of dangerous goods. In this context we welcome the committee's motion to begin a study on rail safety.

At this time I'd like to give you an update on our responses to the recommendations made in the report titled “Review of the Canadian Transportation Safety Regime: Transportation of Dangerous Goods, and Safety Management Systems”, which was tabled in March 2015. In the report, in addition to recommendations where action was already under way, there were three specific recommendations related to rail safety ongoing.

The first was for Transport Canada to ensure it has an adequate number of transportation of dangerous goods and rail safety inspectors to fulfill its oversight requirements. Transport Canada continuously analyzes its workforce and focuses on recruitment and retention of staff to ensure it has the necessary number of oversight personnel with the required skills and competencies to plan and conduct oversight activities. As of December 2015 we had 137 oversight personnel in rail safety and 122 in the transportation of dangerous goods directorate. As in any workplace, the total workforce can fluctuate at any given time due to changing demographics, promotions, retirements, and other factors.

The second recommendation was for Transport Canada to implement all of the recommendations in chapter 7 of the Auditor General's 2013 fall report regarding oversight in rail safety.

As you are aware, Transport Canada developed an ambitious and comprehensive action plan to address the recommendations in the Auditor General's fall 2013 report. Implementing the plan has been a departmental priority.

In particular, over the last two years, the department has accelerated and implemented a suite of regulations to respond to the Auditor General's fall 2013 recommendations for Transport Canada to address outstanding items of the Railway Safety Act review and the rail safety study conducted by this very committee in 2008. I am pleased to say that as of April 1, 2015, the grade crossing regulations, the railway operating certificate regulations, the railway safety administrative monetary penalties regulations, the railway safety management systems regulations of 2015, and the transportation information regulations have all come into effect.

Lastly, the report cited a recommendation that Transport Canada require the use by railways of on-board voice and video recordings as part of a company's safety management system, consistent with the Transportation Safety Board's recommendation. A Transport Canada-Transportation Safety Board co-led project was launched in May 2015, which established a working group to examine technical requirements and the potential safety benefits of in-cab locomotive voice and video recorders. The intention is to compile a final report on the safety benefits of this technology by the end of April 2016. At the conclusion of the safety studies, we will be in a position to make a recommendation about whether and how to mandate the use of this technology in Canada.

Madam Chair, we take note of the other issues identified in the March 9 motion to begin a study on railway safety and are happy to answer those questions now or at a later date. I would like to reiterate that the safety and security of Canadians is paramount, and we are continuously looking at ways to improve railway operations and the transportation of dangerous goods by strengthening regulations and rules, based on emerging events and trends.

I thank you for your attention. We are now prepared to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We appreciate your addressing specifically some of the concerns in the motion from Ms. Block and your comments directly in answer to some of those. We appreciate that very much.

Starting the discussion, we have Ms. Block for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Welcome, Ms. Kinney, Ms. Diogo, and Ms. Girard, and thank you for joining us today. I do look forward to the study. I know that this is not your first time here. Obviously, with all things transport, you may find yourselves in front of this committee on numerous occasions.

I do appreciate the fact that you've referenced the report, which actually is a large part of our committee meetings going forward. I will just note that on page 2, the report states, “Over the last year, the federal government has been very active and has implemented a series of new rules”. This is a report that was tabled in March of last year, so over that previous year the federal government was very active and “implemented a series of new rules, regulations and standards to strengthen the transportation of dangerous goods regime.”

On page 4, it speaks to the point that, “Transport Canada signalled its intention to foster more collaborative rule-making in its response to the interim report on rail safety.” My first question would be this. What examples can you give us of “more collaborative rule-making” implemented by Transport Canada since the parliamentary report was published in March of 2015?

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

Since the report came out there were three main rules that took effect. The latest one was the rule on the key routes of key trains, which was a follow-up to an emergency directive that was issued following the Lac-Mégantic accident. The rule became effective on February 19, 2016, and made permanent some of the provisions of the emergency directive in terms of the requirement for railways to do risk assessment, so it provided the frequency of risk assessments. It also imposed some speed restrictions.

The rules, as well, included additional inspections that railways or companies are required to do on their infrastructure, in particular on track inspections.

Finally, the rule included a provision on how the railway companies are to work with municipalities and other levels of government on their risk assessment. In that particular example there were several exchanges and discussions between Transport Canada, the Railway Association of Canada, as well as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, in terms of what the mechanisms for consulting municipalities would be and how that relationship would work. That's one area.

Another area would be the train securement rule. That came into effect in October 2015, and again it was a rule to make permanent the provisions of the emergency directive on train securement. That rule included a number of things; namely, the fact that the railway companies must use a standard chart in applying the number of handbrakes on a train left unattended.

There was also a rule on what additional physical securement requirements must be applied to unattended equipment, such as a temporary derailment. That was in direct response to the TSB. As well, the rule made permanent the requirement that once an employee has applied the handbrakes, they must confirm this with another employee, who must be qualified in that area to be able to receive the information and make a decision or follow it up, if required.

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

Okay, I just have one quick follow-up question to that.

How does the emergency directive differ from the protective direction 32 that's also referenced in this report?

[Laureen Kinney]

Under the two different pieces of legislation that we're talking about, under the transportation of dangerous goods legislation and the railway safety legislation, there are two slightly different mechanisms to achieve much of the same outcomes. The protective direction is also meant to be a temporary requirement that is put into place that has an equivalency to the requirement of regulation and can be enforced by Transport Canada, and that is used when we see something that needs a quick action to respond to a safety issue.

The same thing applies to an emergency directive under the Railway Safety Act. They have slightly different mechanics, slightly different specifics around them, but they're very similar.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Badawey, you have six minutes.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

With respect to page 11 of the summary that I received here, there is some discussion with respect to the responders at the local level, and with that, the need to enable local responders the opportunity or a mechanism that guarantees that a public authority—as an example, municipalities, and of course the emergency services that belong to municipalities—have immediate access to both resources and funds required to provide emergency providers a response in the event of a situation.

How would you address that?

[Laureen Kinney]

I can give you a high-level answer to that, and then if you would like more details we could probably turn to Nicole Girard.

The main thing Transport Canada has done over the last year and a half is that it has brought together the emergency response task force, bringing together all the parties that have a role to play in first response.

Transport Canada obviously has a role to play, but it is not the only player. There are many levels of jurisdiction and many agencies, companies, and other parties that play a role, as well as the first responders themselves.

We brought that group together to identify some of the common issues facing first response, including things like communications, incident command protocols, training standards, training opportunities, and certainly the issue of funding for both training and equipment.

An issue that is of key concern, as we have been hearing from first responders, is the level of training the first responders have in response to a particular type of flammable liquids incidents, in this particular instance. In that case, there is some training provided by industry associations, but Transport Canada, with the emergency response task force, has focused on what the training standards are, what they should be on a common level, and how to do training. For example, there was an exercise a couple of weeks ago to provide hands-on training, and there was a protocol developed on education that was just released.

In terms of additionally working on.... How would the emergency response assistance plans, which require the shipping companies to provide technical assistance on site in the case of an accident, work with the first responders?

Those have been the main areas we have been working on very hard with this broader group, the general areas we have now focused on.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you.

May I follow up? With respect to the resources, the funding, I am hearing that you are working to that end. Of course, within the preparedness of each different region, you are working with them to ensure their plans are in place and can react to those situations.

I have a question about that. Is there an opportunity for me to get a summary of those you have met with and the protocols you are putting in place in the different regions with respect to whom you are meeting with?

[Laureen Kinney]

If there is an interest, Madam Chair, depending on the level of detail you would like to get, there certainly is an outline on our website of the emergency response task force and the members of that group. I think there are approximately 70 of those, representing a wide variety of.... There's the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, some aboriginal....

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

If I may, I would like to be more specific than that. May I get a summary of who you have met with and, with that, what the protocols are in terms of the establishment of same, and what situations it would actually attach itself to?

[Laureen Kinney]

Madam Chair, if I may, in terms of the general national consultations, much of that has gone on through the emergency task force and is covered in those meeting records, but there have been many other meetings going on at the local level where we work with our remedial measures specialists and our local inspectors on training plans, exercises, and all kinds of questions and answers, so I wouldn't easily be able to develop a list of those.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Once again, Madam Chair, for the third time, if I can have simply a list of those you have met with, as well as the specific protocols that are being put in place with those you are meeting with, with respect to their emergency preparedness, that would be much appreciated.

Madam Chair, my last question.... You mentioned that number three on the priority list you have attached yourself to in the last few months from the review in March 2015 is the required use of on-board voice and video recording. Do our U.S. partners currently have that in place?

[Laureen Kinney]

At this point in time, no, there isn't a requirement in the U.S. They are looking at the value of whether voice and video recorders should be used, and we are working closely with them as well, because obviously there are many cross-border issues.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, may I ask for a summary of that as well, to see in fact how far along we are? My concern, quite frankly, is that we want to level the playing field. We don't want to find ourselves, or them, in a situation where we often find ourselves with respect to abiding by certain regulations across the border, especially when you are trading across the border. We do want to have a level playing field for both sides. That way it is a seamless method of transportation.

Once again, I would like to ask for some summary in terms of how far along you are with respect to those discussions.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Kinney, if you can do your best to send to the clerk a response to the requests of the member, we would appreciate it very much.

Ms. Duncan, you have six minutes.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you. It's nice to see you here again. It's nice to see strong women in the civil service.

I have three information requests that I will put right off the top, and then I have some questions about a number of issues that have been raised.

First, will you provide to the committee all the risk assessment reports that were required under the Transport Canada directive issued in October 2014?

Second, as the Transportation Safety Board has reported that there's insufficient action through the safety management systems to ensure reduced risks, will you provide to the committee the safety management systems for CN and CP for Alberta?

My third request is related to enforcement and compliance policies in staffing. This follows from two issues that have been raised, one by the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs just this week. They have recommended greater emphasis on proactive safety and enforcement so that we aren't just responding after the fact and leaving it to the first responders. The Auditor General in 2013 raised a number of concerns about the enforcement and compliance approach by Transport Canada, the fact that the audit approach offers minimal assurance of compliance; many inspectors are untrained and given minimal guidance; only a small percentage of audits are completed; there is narrow focus; the level of oversight is insufficient; and Transport Canada fails to systematically collect and use relevant safety performance risk data.

I would appreciate if you could submit to the committee, so that we can assess changes you've made since then, the enforcement compliance policy for rail safety, with a list of enforcement personnel. Could you indicate who is full-time or part-time, their qualifications, job descriptions, and training requirements? Please provide a breakdown of the time dedicated to paper audits versus field inspections.

I now have some questions for you on regulations.

The Canada Safety Council testified at this committee in 2014 that they recommended whistle-blower protections for rail workers to encourage reporting to prevent incidents. Are these in the process of being promulgated?

[Laureen Kinney]

Madam Chair, under the new safety management system regulations that came into effect on April 1, 2015, there is a clause that was part of what was discussed in the previous Railway Safety Act review back in 2007-08, and the legislation was amended in 2013, if I recall correctly, to address some of the provisions of those recommendations. Following from that, the safety management system regulations do include a clause that requires companies to establish a policy whereby employees can report safety concerns without fear of reprisals. That is part of the new safety management system regulations that came into force. They're in a transition phase at this point in time, and we are doing initial inspections and will be getting full-scale audits as of this upcoming fiscal year, so that certainly will be one of the elements that will be looked at.

I should additionally mention that of course all employees at railways are free to report to us, and there is a Transportation Safety Board confidential reporting line, if you will, that is also available. Certainly information comes to us that alerts us as to where we should look for problems.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay. Liability insurance was an issue raised in the Emerson report. Can you tell us how frequently the Canadian Transportation Agency reviews and reassesses third-party liability? Have they revised the criteria for coverage so they mirror the new risk factors set out in your railway management system regulations?

[Laureen Kinney]

Madam Chair, I'm sorry, but I'm not an expert in this area, and I couldn't speak to CTA's progress in its process of implementing the new requirements under the Railway Safety Act amendments of last year. I could perhaps defer—

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Could you get back to us? That would be great.

At committee two years back as well, Unifor recommended that rail mechanics be granted powers parallel to those of airline mechanics to cancel trips when significantly unsafe rail car or locomotives are identified. Are you moving on regulations to extend those powers?

[Laureen Kinney]

At this point in time we don't have any published consultation proposals on that element, and I'm not aware of any at this point.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay.

I have a quick question, which I don't think we can totally deal with here. It's on the puzzlement in this industrial sector, in which you have regulations and rules. There seem to be different requirements for consultation on the regulations and on the rules. The rules by and large require consultation with only the workers and users. Are you considering amending the legislation to require consultation with cities or the public or first nations whose populations or property might be impacted?