Transport Committee on April 11th, 2016

[Phil Benson]

During the discussions when we worked with all the members on the last bill, whistle-blower protection was very important. There's a problem in the rail industry, in that their method of discipline is basically to fire someone. So whatever methods they have of reporting to a company just weren't going to get dealt with.

Secondly, there is a line to the TSB, but that's a waste of time, with all respect to the TSB, because they're just going to phone rail safety in Transport Canada. So what we proposed, which was accepted by and put forward by Minister Jean at the time of the PS and accepted unanimously by everyone in the House, was that we would have this 1-800 number so that our members could be the eyes and ears for the inspectors and call directly to rail safety to say there is a problem at 100 mile on this particular spot. Instead of having it separated for Transport Canada to provide it, they buried it in the safety management systems of a corporation to do.

So quite bluntly, it was 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016, and all this required was setting up a 1-800 number and telling our members that this is the phone call. It ain't going to happen because it's buried in the safety management system that a corporation controls.

When you talk about reviewing the act, these are all the little things that were misplaced in the act. It was the best we could do at the time.

[Brian Stevens]

Just to supplement that point, there is the 1-800 number in terms of secure desk, and when a call is made it doesn't take long for the railway itself to find out—going to Phil's point—who made the call, because they know who's scheduled there and who was working and who was on the train, who was on the ground.

What we found very effective, and this is through working in consultation with and collaboratively with Transport Canada, is to have identified a couple of key people on each of our railways as are national coordinators. They are the keepers of the information who connect with each of the Transport Canada inspectors. So they validate the information before Transport Canada gets it so that they know it's worth a call or worth a trip to go out. It's been proven to be appropriate, for example, with some of the cars we've had in Lethbridge where there were some cracks on some grain cars that were being filled with caulking grease and painted over just to get the cars out....

Thankfully, through some confidence.... What it takes is trust, as I think someone talked about earlier. Our members have to have trust in Transport Canada and have to have trust in the whistle-blower protection. They, too, want to ensure that the railways are operating safely.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

How am I doing on time, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You've got three more minutes.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Okay.

Could you also elaborate a little bit more on the protections for these whistle-blowers that we should put in place?

[Brian Stevens]

Currently now it's very much like the regulations, as we're in the hands of the railway. In terms of the protection, we really have to rely on the role that the union plays, if there there happens to be any retribution or retaliation. The nice thing is that typically the railways don't wait a couple of weeks if they figure they know who it is. They'll act quickly. So we're able to do something there.

[Phil Benson]

I think the language of the act regarding the 1-800 number to Transport rail had sufficient language, with non-disclosure, confidentiality, etc. But again most often, just so you know, at least for our other division, they call Transport Canada anyway. The leadership will call Transport Canada if there is a problem basically to protect the person giving them the information. At least we had confidence that Transport Canada would perhaps offer that level of protection that we do not feel we have with the companies.

[Christine Collins]

I just want to add that the biggest problem is the fear. If they don't have strong enough whistle-blower protection and it's not clear enough, they are afraid to come forward when they see things like shortcuts being taken, etc., because they know they're going to lose their job. Having a safe whistle-blower line is critical for the workers to have the confidence to report safety violations and other shortcuts that are being taken. Without it we will just continue the way we are.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you.

I have no follow-up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay.

Ms. Block.

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

I join my colleagues in welcoming all of you here today. I do appreciate the testimony you've given and I have a lot of questions that I don't think six minutes will quite cover, but we do know that when we talk about public safety embedded in that conversation is also the safety of the workers who work within the industry.

I do want to go back to the discussion around fatigue management, even though I also want to ask you questions about the use of remote-controlled devices.

Briefly, you mentioned the mileage-based system. How long has that system been in place?

[Don Ashley]

I would say probably the last 75 years. I have 31 years of service on the railway and it far predates me.

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

Why has this system persisted so long?

[Phil Benson]

Perhaps I can answer. If you look in isolation at rail, it looks different or unique, but it is really no different from long-distance trucks, pilots. It's sort of the standard unit, because it's a unit that is measurable for companies and for workers. It's not unique for rail, it's just a standard methodology that's used in the transportation industry.

It's not that the rails are unique, it's really the same.

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

Okay.

You have talked about regulations that have been put in place for truckers and for aviation and I'm wondering what have been the barriers to any sort of proposed different systems that might be used within the rail industry for how you schedule workers?

[Phil Benson]

The answer is really short: the companies don't want it.

Not only do the companies not want it, I will tell you that Lisa Raitt, who was the minister during the last meeting they're referring to, when they were trying to deal with these hours, there was a breakdown and the companies didn't want it. The previous minister, Minister Raitt, mandated Transport Canada to go ahead and do it, because she understood 16-hour, 18-hour and 20-hour days were just wrong. The minister has the power to change that. It doesn't affect all fatigue, but the minister has the power. Needless to say, we believe the companies didn't want it, and it didn't happen.

If you like, it requires this body to act.

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

So in October 2015, CP announced that it had, through negotiations with its 450 U.S. engineers, brought an end to a mileage-based wage system and replaced it with a more standard cycle with two consecutive days off with wages paid hourly.

Is this something that could be brought to Canada? Would this system satisfy concerns with fatigue management?

[Don Ashley]

No.

We looked at that system and there's a lot more to it than that. You come in for 12 hours, you have no idea where you are going, which way you are going, whereas right now our on-call people work a pool but they know where they're taking the train to and they know where the train is coming back from. Under that system it was just come in for 12 hours, we'll send you where we're going to send you, or we may not send you anywhere, then we'll put you up for rest for the appropriate amount of time and then you'll go back for 12 hours again.

That's not a system that we thought really addressed any of our needs here. They also have different hours-of-service rules in the United States, so that model was based on their hours-of-service regulations in the U.S. If we adopted a similar system here it may be a solution, but right now it's not.

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

I want to get to the remote-controlled devices, but that raises another question for me.

Does our rail industry here in Canada have conversations with the folks in the United States to look at best practices and see if there's any desire to...?

[Don Ashley]

As far as the industry goes, the two big railways here are both international so their companies are here and in the United States. As far as our perspective, yes we have counterparts there and we're associated with the organization in the States and we talk about things.

In fact, the regulators at Transport Canada and FRA talk about issues too. I don't think that's frequent enough, because there are things going on in the U.S. that are being ignored up here.

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

Okay.

I want to switch now to remote control devices. I wonder if you could describe for me the current use of remote control devices.

[Don Ashley]

It's not a new technology but has been around since the late nineties, early 2000s. It was initially brought in to use in yards in building up trains and in switching yards for what used to be hump operations. It's now flat switching. That's since expanded to outside of yards and to other yards for switching industries around yards, for which it was never designed. It was originally designed for flat switching in yards that build big freight trains. That's since expanded, and now it's expanding again. CP has announced that they're going to move it out to do all the road switchers and main line operations with it. That has a significant impact that we think is negative.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Block. I'm sorry, that's another minute over.

Mr. Badawey, for six minutes.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and to the presenters, thank you as well for your time this afternoon.

I'm going to refer to the presentation by Phil Benson and the paragraph outlining how many taxpayer dollars have been expended to date. Over $175 million in taxpayer monies has been spent to shore up, as other witnesses have said, an existing strong, safe regulatory scheme.

Mr. Benson, from that comment, do you think there is a need to listen to more witnesses, and if you do, who would they be?

[Phil Benson]

Oh, my goodness. Our maintenance away people are not here, as they're kind of busy.

I think with the standard group you've got here, I'd like to see some public interest people coming. If you look at the people who are in the transportation of dangerous goods group, we have a public interest. We have, if you were interested in safety measures, some firefighters and chiefs of police. We have fire chiefs and police officers.

I think other than that it seems to be the same round of people because it's a very specialized area.