Transport Committee on Sept. 11th, 2017

[Jean Laporte]

If I can add to Mr. Jang's reply, the unions were invited to participate in the study. They chose not to participate in all aspects of it. They did attend a few meetings and a few debriefings. They did not participate in all aspects of the study, but they were invited to do so from the onset.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Okay, that answers that question.

Further to that, when you talked about sharing, could you give examples? I know you've used some things in the sense of what you would share, but could you give me a run-through in the sense of what you would share that would make the engineers feel that this would be all right if you shared this information with the rail companies?

[Kirby Jang]

I'm sorry, could you repeat that question? It's sharing of information that's—

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Yes.

We're talking about safety things that we're all interested in. What examples would you give to the railway that the engineers would say, “Hey, this makes sense to us”?

[Kirby Jang]

As part of the safety study we did look at the safety benefits and as part of that we tried to document some things that were immediately available and usable. Certainly, as Kathleen mentioned, in terms of identifying any unclear instructions, any areas where improvements can be done, it could actually be ergonomic-type improvements, or improvements that would help improve resource management. Those were some of the items that were identified during the safety study and identified as lessons learned or best practices.

To perhaps add a little more context in terms of how some of these safety benefits were identified, we included some very specific reviews of what I'll call scenarios of interest. These scenarios of interest include normal operation, non-normal operations, and different scenarios like time of day or length of shift. The intent was to try to examine certain types of human performance that could be identified and captured as part of the on-board recording, so it's things like stress, workload, fatigue actually, inattention, distractions. Much of that was captured and proven as part of the safety study in terms of the benefits that were available through recorders.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you.

Through airline and marine, is there a sampling that's done from those industries?

[Kathleen Fox]

No, because under the CTAISB Act as it exists today, there is a legislative barrier that prohibits sharing of access or use of that information by anybody but the Transportation Safety Board in the course of an accident, unless, as we said, there are certain principles under which a court can order release of a recording.

The changes to the Railway Safety Act require the consequential changes to the CTAISB Act in order to enable the sharing of recorded information with Transport Canada and with the railway companies.

In order for air or marine to be able to do that, there would be changes required to the Aeronautics Act as well as to the Canada Shipping Act. Until those changes take effect, if they ever do, it would only be possible in the railway industry.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I think in the sense of what you're attempting to do, which is safety—and we're all considering safety—the challenge with car companies and independents is that they do a lot of crash tests regarding safety. It's hard to do that with big trains. The challenge is that you're often looking at the after-effects of this. You have to deal with it in the opposite way. Is this trying to do it the reverse way to facilitate that?

[Kathleen Fox]

From the perspective of our mandate, we will listen to recordings after a reportable occurrence takes place in the conduct of a TSB investigation. The use of that data is a reactive approach. What we would like to see and what we're supportive of is the railway companies being able to access that information proactively in the context of a non-punitive SMS or to investigate those incidents that we don't investigate as long as the safeguards are there to ensure that the data remains privileged, not public, and isn't used for discipline against individual employees unless they've identified a threat to safety.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just to continue on that same theme, essentially, this is not only going to be giving you an ability to be reactive to the different incidents that happen but obviously, companies will have information for analysis and identification of safety, as you outline in your fact sheet, as well as sampling by Transport Canada for policy development. Will that in fact now be part of your mandate moving forward?

[Kathleen Fox]

No, our mandate does not change.

Our mandate will continue to be to investigate occurrences in the air, rail, marine, and pipeline modes of transportation under federal jurisdiction to identify causal and contributing factors. It will not change our mandate. What it will change, going forward and with the implementation of regulations, is that we will have to look at our processes internally in terms of how we do business and how we share information with the parties in accordance with the amendments to the Railway Safety Act. This will allow Transport Canada to do random sampling of recordings for policy purposes or to ensure compliance with the act. It will allow the railway companies to do random sampling as well as investigate incidents and accidents that we're not investigating for the purposes of improving their system in a non-disciplinary fashion.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

On the same theme, with respect to being proactive, do you find yourselves as well not only looking at processes like this and utilizing the resources that may become a mechanism within your day-to-day business but also trying to be proactive with respect to rail lines, waterways, roadways, and trying to look at different situations before they happen with respect to the deficiencies in infrastructure?

[Kathleen Fox]

Yes, and I can give you a concrete example. We don't do surface. We don't do roadways per se, but certainly we do air, rail, and marine.

I can give you a concrete example right now. There have been a number of occurrences at the Toronto airport involving the potential risk of collision with aircraft. They haven't collided, thankfully, but we are doing a proactive study to look at all of the circumstances that may be leading to that. We're not waiting for an accident to occur.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

On that, what is the process when identified infrastructure is deficient and may pose a safety concern?

[Kathleen Fox]

As part of our investigations, we look at everything. If we're looking at a rail derailment, we're going to look at the condition of the track, the maintenance activities and procedures, the condition of the train, the activities of the crew, training of the crew and the procedures and rules they were following, and fatigue. We look at everything. Then we narrow it down to those circumstances and conditions that may have led or contributed to that accident or created a risk of it. If we identify a safety deficiency that isn't being addressed through current regulations, rules, or actions taken by the railway, then we will make a recommendation for further action to be taken.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

In fact, the stewards of that asset would be liable for the lack of management, performance, investment, etc., if a deficiency is found and/or an incident happens.

[Kathleen Fox]

I would prefer not to use the word “liable” in the sense that it is not our mandate to determine liability but I would certainly say “accountable”. We will point out any deficiencies that we identify, whether those are in infrastructure, procedures, training, or personnel, through the conduct of our investigation.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll pass the rest of my time on to Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Last Thursday, I spent over an hour on the tarmac in Kelowna waiting to take off. The airline had discovered some problems with the landing gear. On the plane there were with me people who had connections to other flights that they were now going to miss because of that delay. Looking ahead at a compensation system for an air passenger bill of rights to be included there, it occurs to me that you could end up with some conflicts between somebody trying to get people to the place where they wouldn't be looking for compensation versus the time it would take to try to find out and remedy the issue that they have on the ground, which may just simply be a wonky trouble light.

Are you concerned about the inherent conflict that an air passenger bill of rights could create?

[Kathleen Fox]

Not really, no. Airlines want to stay in business, but they also want to get their passengers safely to where they need to go. They make decisions every day about maintenance issues, and they do so in accordance with Transport Canada regulations and their own internal procedures. I expect that will carry on.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. O'Toole.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'd like to thank all of you for appearing here.

When I was in the Canadian Armed Forces in Shearwater, I dealt with folks from your department in the aftermath of Swissair, which will be 20 years ago next September. The degree of professionalism of your men and women in your department is appreciated. It's an important job.

I have a few questions with respect to LVVR and the rollout. In the permitted uses and non-permitted uses, it seems like random sampling will be permitted. It will be part of the deployment of LVVRs. But then, at the same time, continuous monitoring, as has been assured to employees, will not be the case. Is there a procedure that's been developed for randomized sampling, and how will that be deployed?