Evidence of meeting #67 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 c-49.
A video is available from Parliament.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Thanks again, Madam Chair.
Where we left off last time, you explained that there were a few instances where a railway might be able to use the data from a recorder, for example, to date the random audit or to investigate an accident or incident that wasn't being otherwise investigated.
Perhaps call me a bit of a skeptic. I can see a vindictive manager seeing the data, recognizing who the employee is, and taking action. Is there a mechanism that's there or perhaps should be there that would punish someone for acting outside of the rules in this manner?
2:55 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
First of all, let me say that this was one of the concerns I raised during the opening remarks. We know that the Railway Association of Canada, the industry, and the railways are taking steps to try to improve the safety culture within the railways. We hope that the regulations will have very strict prescribed criteria in terms of what types of situations could lead to any kind of action. In other words, what constitutes a threat to safety?
We believe that, just because somebody doesn't follow a procedure, it shouldn't necessarily lead to discipline. We think it's more important to look at why they didn't follow the procedure. Does the procedure work? Were they trained on the procedure? Where's the supervision? Those are the systemic issues we hope the railway industry will look at in terms of identifying ways to improve and reduce the risk. We believe that the regulations have to clearly identify what those criteria are and have very strong enforcement powers for Transport Canada to impose penalties on companies that do not access or use this information in accordance with the Railway Safety Act and with the regulations.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
In a similar vein, you used two turns of phrase. One was the “most egregious circumstances” and the other was “immediate threat to safety” to describe when an individual could be disciplined or potentially removed from work.
I'm just wondering, is that sort of threshold going to be left up to regulation and the interpretation of what that means?
2:55 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
Yes. I shouldn't use the word “immediate” because that has a very specific meaning, but if there's a threat to safety that's identified. It would be left up to the regulations to determine what constitutes a threat to safety and how that would be dealt with.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
We've had a few helpful comparisons to recorders used in the air and marine sectors as well during the course of your testimony today.
I'm curious as to whether there have been any sorts of privacy complaints on an ongoing basis based on the use of recorders in those other sectors.
2:55 p.m.
Chief Operating Officer, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
Over the past 30 years that I have been with the Transportation Safety Board, we have not seen any trend or major areas of concern with respect to a breach of privacy associated with any of the recordings that are in place. We have from time to time heard about issues, and we have followed up on each one of those, case by case, as required.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
An additional question back to the watch-list that came up during one of my colleague's lines of questioning, I believe the specific item has been on the watch-list since 2012 or roughly thereabouts.
I'm curious if there are things on this watch-list item that could be better done through Bill C-49, or does the text of the proposed legislation satisfy this watch-list item completely in your view?
2:55 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
The TSB supports the draft legislation in its current form in terms of addressing the deficiency that we identified, which was our lack of data, and we believe that there will be a lot of positive benefits coming out of it for the railway companies and Transport Canada on the condition that the appropriate safeguards are in place. That we'll largely address. We want to see our watch-list implemented.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Of course.
Those are my questions, Madam Chair.
Mr. Graham will pick up if I have extra time.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I'll carry right on.
In your studies so far, have you found any companies or operators that are already in routine breach of safety management systems?
2:55 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
Sorry, in breach of safety management systems...?
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
They have their SMS, safety management systems. Do you find companies that are in breach of the systems they already have in place?
2:55 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
Again, our role is not one of compliance monitoring. That's Transport Canada's role, as the regulator. They conduct inspections and audits of railway companies, and other companies in other modes, that are required to have safety management systems. Where they identify non-conformance, they take the appropriate action.
However, when we do an investigation, we look at whether the company had a safety management system. Was it required to have it? Was it effective in identifying the hazards that posed a factor in the particular occurrence? If not, why not? Was Transport Canada aware? What action did they take?
A good example of that is our investigation into the Ornge helicopter accident in northern Ontario that goes back to 2013, which we released a little over a year ago. We look at it as part of an occurrence, but in terms of looking for compliance, that's Transport Canada's role.
3 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I understand.
LVVR is specific to locomotives. I assume that's intended only as a lead locomotive. Would all locomotives always have it operational when the engine is running? Would you have it in DPU engines? Would you have it outside of that, on wayside detectors and so forth? With regard to anywhere else where you have a fixed placement, would you want to go that route, or is it only the lead engine that would have it?
I'm assuming it's Mr. Jang on that one.
3 p.m.
Director, Rail and Pipeline Investigations, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
Yes, in terms of the recommendation that we've made, it is just the lead locomotive on the front of the train where this equipment should be installed.
3 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you.
I want to come back to the issue of recorders, which have to do with the category of accidents related to human error. If such recorders were in place, the authorities could know whether the train had violated a specific rule or whether it was travelling faster than the speed limit, for example. Are the rules reviewed? Does Bill C-49 provide for a mechanism to monitor the evolution of technology in rail transportation or in any other mode of transportation?
3 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
If we see during an investigation following an accident that a rule does not cover a specific situation or that no rule exists, we can recommend that a rule be added or reviewed.
3 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
I will give a specific example that may enlighten us.
After the Lac-Mégantic events, we learned that the very structure of DOT-111s was deficient. So improved DOT-111s were proposed, but that considerably increased the length of trains. Does that have an impact on rail safety? Is it measured? Have the regulations been amended in any way because disaster risk was increased?
3 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
I will give you a concrete example. In February 2017, we published our final report on the accident in Gladwick, Ontario. An issue of rail break came up. The train was travelling at a speed that was lower than the speed limit prescribed by the rules. The train was carrying crude oil.
After the accident, we recommended to Transport Canada to carry out a study taking into account all the factors that may lead to derailment, including the train's speed, length and contents—for instance, mixed goods or crude oil. We recommended that Transport Canada review all factors contributing to derailment, that it take measures to mitigate those risks and that it change the rules accordingly.
3 p.m.
Chair, Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board
The department simply said it would check whether any studies existed. We are waiting for the follow-up.
