Transport Committee on Sept. 11th, 2017

[Kathleen Fox]

The equipment will be prescribed as part of the regulations. In broad terms, we're talking about locomotives operating on main tracks to distinguish from equipment that's operating in rail yards where they're marshalling trains and moving trains around. It's mainline track.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I was just asking because there's a whole lot of equipment that runs on main tracks that isn't main track equipment. Is there a line there?

[Kathleen Fox]

No, it's specific to leading locomotives on main track.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Okay.

You mentioned in a number of points in your briefing note that TC will enforce compliance with regard to use and privilege. What enforcement methods will Transport Canada...? Sorry, TSB will enforce compliance with the privilege for employee protections. What methods do you have to enforce that privilege, and how do you propose doing that?

[Jean Laporte, Chief Operating Officer, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board]

We have been enforcing the privilege in the other modes already. We don't see things any differently with the railways. Essentially, when we find out about an issue, through the use of recordings, as a first step we contact the company and seek to get its voluntary compliance. If it is not willing to comply on a voluntary basis, under our legislation we can then take legal action against the company. In some cases, we have had those discussions. We haven't had to take anyone to court yet, but the provision is there. We're able to do that.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

It would be like a prosecution.

[Jean Laporte]

Yes.

Under the new legislation, under Bill C-49, in the case of LVVR, we would be able to work with Transport Canada. Also, Transport Canada would have enforcement powers under the Railway Safety Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Your time is up. You have 30 seconds left, but it's not enough time.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

If that's the case, I have a very short question.

The other side of what we're discussing is the passenger bill of rights. In your view, is there anything positive or negative that would impact safety in the passenger bill of rights?

[Kathleen Fox]

No.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Aubin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for being here, dear colleagues.

Since we are talking about the Transportation Safety Board, or TSB, we know, unfortunately, that there has been an accident and that the conclusions of an investigation could be used to improve future safety.

If possible, I would like to know the percentage of types of conclusions the TSB has reached with regard to rail accidents. To my mind, there are three broad categories: mechanical failure, obstruction on the track, and human error.

Is that correct? Have I forgotten anything?

If this is correct, I would like to know the approximate percentage for the incidents that have happened.

[Kathleen Fox]

Broadly speaking, those are the main causes. I can give you specific figures for human error. From January 1994 to August 2016, there were 223 accidents involving freight trains. In 94 or 42% of those accidents, the cause was human error. Other factors were involved in the remaining 58%.

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

That gives me a good opening. For the incidents that represent 42% of all accidents, to what extent could voice and video recorders have helped prevent what I consider the greatest factor in accidents involving human error, namely, conductor fatigue?

In such cases, could a digital recorder change anything at all? Does Bill C-49 fail to provide sufficient clarity? It does not contain any measures to prevent conductor fatigue and, unfortunately, we will not know until after the fact that nothing could have been done.

[Kathleen Fox]

Here is what I can tell you about accidents involving human factors. The board determined that about 20% of accidents involved fatigue. That is why, in October 2016, we put fatigue on our latest watchlist of key safety issues for freight train crews.

That being said, whether or not an accident occurs, oftentimes video or voice recordings can reveal what the crew members were doing earlier and whether they had sent signals, whether they were talking and whether they were aware of signals they were receiving. That information helps the TSB identify safety deficiencies. If companies have access to that information, they can introduce training measures and adopt better procedures, which may not have prevented the accident that just took place, but will prevent other accidents.

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

In reports produced on past accidents, did the TSB specifically recommend to the government a number of measures that would help reduce fatigue, which is probably behind the chief human errors?

[Kathleen Fox]

Fatigue is certainly among those factors. As I said, we put it on our watchlist of key safety issues. We have not issued any specific recommendations on that issue, but we have pointed out that it is a problem for freight train crews.

Regulations already require railway companies to have fatigue management plans, but those do not always take fatigue science into account. The matter is sometimes subject to negotiations between the unions and the employer.

However, many other factors can cause an accident. For example, an accident may occur after a misinterpreted signal, as may have been the case in Burlington. So some of the recommendations we made had to do with automated systems to stop trains if the crew is not responding to a signal correctly.

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

Do you see those automatic measures in Bill C-49 or not?

In this era where means of transportation are increasingly intelligent—our vehicles can recognize a potential accident—instead of having a recorder, would it not be more important to adopt measures or have technology on locomotives that makes it possible to intervene and not only to determine where the error was after the fact?

[Kathleen Fox]

We have to know that a problem exists before we can resolve it. Recorders will help the TSB, railway companies and Transport Canada identify problems that may require other solutions that we have not yet considered because we were not aware of existing problems.

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

You frequently mentioned freight.

For the TSB, are the measures to be implemented to ensure greater safety the same when it comes to ordinary goods and when it comes to dangerous goods? Are the safety measures to be implemented for the transportation of canola oil different from those for the transportation of flammable products, for instance?

[Kathleen Fox]

It is clear that different measures must be taken when dealing with dangerous goods, but fatigue can manifest regardless of what the train is transporting. It is just that the consequences of an accident can be more significant when dangerous goods are involved.

The TSB issued a number of recommendations following the Lac-Mégantic incident, and even prior to it, in order to mitigate the risks associated with transporting dangerous goods. Transport Canada has also adopted many measures since those events to reduce the risk, but the systems still involve risks. We continue to monitor the situation and issue recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Fox.

Sorry, Mr. Aubin.

Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much to our witnesses for being here.

One of the things I struggle with when I'm dealing with safety generally is that it's very hard, in my mind, to balance anything against safety. If you're talking about rights, I feel as though the public is always going to side with what's safest, so I feel that this is a very difficult discussion. When we talk about tragic anecdotes such as the Burlington incident, it's very difficult for me to say we should do anything except what's safest. However, to satisfy my own position on issues such as this, I'd really love to see if there's objective data we can look at to back up the assertion that these measures are going to enhance safety.

Do we have a study or quantitative data that actually demonstrates that the use of these recorders is going to improve safety in the Canadian rail industry?

[Kathleen Fox]

I don't know if one of my colleagues can point to a specific study. We have had voice recorders for years in aviation and for over 10 or 12 years in maritime. Without those recorders—and I can think of a number of accidents—we would not have known what had happened, particularly when the crew did not survive the accident or sometimes they may have survived but there may be discrepancies in their testimony or they simply don't remember everything that happened. As a result of that, steps have been taken, procedures have been changed, training has been increased, and technology has been introduced, and these things have improved the safety of the system.

The fact of being recorded also has a way of influencing and shaping people's behaviour. If there is an issue, for example, with inappropriate use of electronic devices while operating, people may be less inclined to do that if they know they're being recorded. It's very important, and as I mentioned in French, we can't solve the problems and we can't identify the safety deficiencies if we don't know what they are. We don't always know what they are unless we can get a holistic view of the accident based on voice recordings, video, if it's available, digital recordings, as well as any witness testimony that we have had access to.