Table of Contents:

• Executive Summary
• Chapter 4: The Legislative Framework
• Chapter 5: The Regulator: Roles and Responsibilities
• Chapter 6: People, Roads and Railways
• Chapter 7: Rail Safety and the Environment
• Chapter 8: Substance Use and Abuse
• Chapter 9: Provincially Regulated Railways
• Chapter 10: Safety in the Future
• Appendix: Other Issues

Executive Summary

The Railway Safety Act came into effect in January 1989 at which time responsibility for the regulation of railway safety moved from the National Transportation Agency to the Minister of Transport. Section 51 required the Minister of Transport to establish a committee to carry out a review of the working of the Railway Safety Act to examine the first five year’s of operation of the new act.

The committee comprised three people:

• Mr. M.C. Engels of London, Ontario
• Mr. W. Onchelenko of Winnipeg, Manitoba
• Mr. A. Goguen of Moncton, New Brunswick

The review was completed on time in December, 1994 and slightly below the $2.1 million budget.

This was a wide ranging, independent, review of all aspects of the legislation relating to railway safety in Canada. The report, entitled "On Track", was tabled in Parliament on February 15, 1995. It contains 69 recommendations aimed at improving the regulation of railway safety in Canada. This document has been prepared to show the government’s response to each recommendation. In many cases the report recommends legislative changes. These will be prepared following consultation with all concerned.

Railway Safety Act Review

• Agree 60
• Disagree 7
• Study 2

Chapter 4: The Legislative Framework

Recommendation 4.1

We recommend that the Railway Act be amended so as to eliminate duplicate safety provisions.

Response 4.1 :

Agree. This will be included under the current legislative proposals for the National Transportation Act (1987).

Recommendation 4.2

We recommend that coordination agreements as contemplated in Section 6 of the Railway Safety Act be implemented between the National Transportation Agency and the regulator to ensure all safety issues are addressed.

Response 4.2 :

Agree. Following the changes to the role of the National Transportation Agency, discussions will be opened with the Agency with a view to drafting the agreement contemplated.

Recommendation 4.3

We recommend that Section 35(3) of the National Transportation Act, 1987 be revoked.

Response 4.3 :

Agree. This will be included under the current legislative proposals for the National Transportation Act (1987).

Recommendation 4.4

We recommend that Sections 150 and 152 of the National Transportation Act, 1987 be amended to remove all references to engineering matters and jurisdiction over safety matters.

Response 4.4 :

Agree. This will be included under the current legislative proposals for the National Transportation Act (1987).

Recommendation 4.5

We recommend that Section 36 of the Railway Safety Act be revoked.

Response 4.5 :

Agree with the objective. This section gives the Minister the power to obtain safety information from the railways. Accident and incident information is currently filed with the Transportation Safety Board and there is no need for duplication. While section 36 may be repealed, there will be a need for the regulator to use railway information to monitor compliance with railway safety plans (see recommendations 4.6 and 5.2) and provision will have to be made in the Railway Safety Act for this.

Recommendation 4.6

We recommend that the Railway Safety Act be amended to provide for a statutory framework that sees the railways propose performance standards and a comprehensive safety plan to implement the standards, both of which must be approved by the regulator. We further recommend that approved performance standards and safety plans be made binding on railway companies.

Response 4.6 :

Agree in principle with this approach and need to look in more detail at the mechanisms required and consult with industry. The Committee’s recommendations are based on the industry of today but it is important to have in place a flexible regime able to accommodate changes to the industry. This may require legislation.

Recommendation 4.7

We recommend that Section 19 of the Railway Safety Act be amended to allow the regulator to establish rules on matters of public safety.

Response 4.7 :

Disagree. A modification of the legislation as recommended would give the regulator the power to approve rules promulgated by the regulator itself in the area of public safety. The existing legislation authorizes the Governor-in-Council to make regulations in the area of public safety. Utilizing the existing regulatory authority, instead of the proposed rule making, would give legal force to public safety matters in a formal, open process with the opportunity for public consultation.

Recommendation 4.8

We recommend that the Railway Safety Act be amended to provide for authority for the railways to formulate rules under Section 20 of the Railway Safety Act in respect of those matters set out in Sections 7 and 18(2).

Response 4.8 :

Agree. Section 7 covers engineering matters while section 18 (2) covers crossings. This would provide increased flexibility in rule-making. This will require legislation.

Recommendation 4.9

We recommend that any existing guidelines concerning matters of public safety be put forward as regulator-sponsored rules.

Response 4.9 :

Agree in principle. Such guidelines should be formulated through regulation.

Recommendation 4.10

We further recommend that any rules sponsored or required to be filed by the regulator be subject to cost-benefit analysis.

Response 4.10 :

Agree in principle. The normal regulation making process assures this.

Recommendation 4.11

We recommend that the Railway Safety Act be amended to provide that Section 31(9) be revoked and that appeals of notices and orders issued under Section 31 be directed to a qualified, publicized body, independent of the regulator. We further recommend that there be a provision to permit a timely review and resolution of any appeals, with decisions from this body to be final, it being understood that orders are to remain in force until the appeal has been decided.

Response 4.11 :

Disagree. Parliament considered this matter and decided that there could only be one body responsible for safety and that such an appeal mechanism would have the effect of undermining the Minister, whom it had decided should be responsible for safety. There is a need to avoid dividing the accountability for safety. There is already a mechanism for appeal in the current legislation and this has been used in a timely fashion.

Recommendation 4.12

We recommend that the Minister of Transport implement the Railway Safety Consultative Committee as specified in Section 44 of the Railway Safety Act. We further recommend that the Act be amended to eliminate the specified membership and to permit the Minister to appoint members as required, including representation from railways, unions and public interest groups.

Response 4.12 :

Agree with the objective. There are already consultative mechanisms in place and Transport Canada will add to them to address the concerns voiced to the Committee.

Recommendation 4.13

We recommend that Sections 19 and 20 of the Railway Safety Act be amended to ensure that all parties are subject to the same time constraints for consultation under the rule-making process.

Response 4.13 :

Agree. This would prevent any party from deliberately slowing down the rule making process. 60 days would seem to be a reasonable time bearing in mind this is what is allowed the Minister to make a decision on a rule application. This will require legislation.

Recommendation 4.14

We recommend that Section 22 of the Railway Safety Act be amended to require a consultation process with relevant associations, similar to the process established by Sections 19 and 20, and that a time period be prescribed within which the association consulted may make its views known. We further recommend that the Minister be required to make a decision on an application for an exemption within 30 days of receipt, with provision for one extension of no more than 60 days.

Response 4.14 :

Agree. The intent of this recommendation is to ensure that all applications for rules and exemptions be treated equally in terms of consultation. There are reduced time periods proposed for exemptions even though the report states that "an exemption to a rule may have as important consequences for safety as the establishment of the rule itself." This being the case, it would make sense to have similar time periods for exemptions as for any other rule applications (i.e. 60 days). It should be noted that the time period is a maximum and the Minister frequently makes a decision well before the expiry of the time limit.

Some items, such as limited duration testing of new and experimental railway equipment, can crop up at very short notice. In this case it would be preferable to have the proponent give notice of the request for exemption with the interested party who would then have the responsibility of making concerns known directly to the regulator.

This will require legislation.

Recommendation 4.15

We recommend that a statement of policy relevant to railway safety, outlining objectives and roles, be included in the Railway Safety Act.

Response 4.15 :

Agree with the objective. This was given a great deal of study by the committee of interested parties that drafted the original Act. The original committee felt it preferable to omit a statement of policy to avoid interpretations which could lead to undesirable restrictions on some sections of the legislation. The consultative group examining the details of the new legislation will re-examine this. This would require legislation.

Chapter 5: The Regulator: Roles and Responsibilities

Recommendation 5.1

We recommend that the requirement in Section 11 of the Railway Safety Act that an affidavit be filed with the Minister by a professional engineer be replaced by a requirement for a letter of declaration by the person in charge of the work on behalf of the party undertaking the work.

Response 5.1 :

Agree in principle. This would be a useful step which would reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. Transport Canada will develop specific requirements for certification documents which will ensure professional standards and accountability. These need not be submitted to government but retained by the railway and available for audit. This will require legislation.

Recommendation 5.2

We recommend that the regulator, in conjunction with railways, provinces and other relevant parties, perform an analysis of data requirements and availability to fulfil its role as a monitoring and auditing agency and to implement means to collect and analyze the required data.

Response 5.2 :

Agree in principle. This should be studied in relation to the work on 4.6.

Recommendation 5.3

We recommend that the regulator implement a nationally coordinated program of monitoring, auditing and inspection to hold railways accountable for their safety plans. We further recommend that the current emphasis on front-line inspection be replaced by monitoring of key safety indicators, adherence to a multi-year comprehensive audit plan and the strategic use of limited frontline inspection.

Response 5.3 :

Agree in principle. See the response to 4.6.

Recommendation 5.4

We recommend that railways and the regulator work together to establish key indicators and the requisite data streams, as well as an optimal approach to conducting comprehensive audits of the railways' safety plans.

Response 5.4 :

Agree in principle. See the response to 4.6.

Chapter 6: People, Roads and Railways

Recommendation 6.1

We recommend that Transport Canada place higher priority on prevention/education activities as they relate to grade crossings and that a more appropriate proportion of resources be directed to such programs.

Response 6.1:

Agree. Transport Canada agrees that there should be more emphasis placed upon education programs. The Department is currently reviewing its Grade Crossing Improvement Program. Part of this review will address the question of the funding applied to education programs as well as other ways of increasing awareness and safety at grade crossings.

Recommendation 6.2

We recommend that Transport Canada establish and publish clear objective criteria to guide applications relating to grade crossing improvements and that an up-to-date comprehensive list of prioritized grade crossing improvement projects be publicly available.

Response 6.2:

Agree. A greater effort will be made as part of the review referred to in the response to recommendation 6.1 to ensure a greater understanding of the criteria used. The process for carrying out improvements will be simplified to ensure that municipalities are able to plan and budget for these works in a timely fashion thereby removing uncertainties. More emphasis will be placed in this area.

Recommendation 6.3

We recommend that the Railway Safety Act be amended to give the Minister of Transport power to order work for grade crossing improvements and to authorize grants on his or her own initiative where, in the Minister's opinion, it will enhance safety.

Response 6.3:

Agree in principle. Railways and road authorities must retain responsibility for safety at grade crossings therefore this tool would be utilized in exceptional cases only. This would require legislation.

Recommendation 6.4

We recommend that regulations be promulgated under Section 24(1)(e) of the Railway Safety Act to enable railways to exercise their authority to clear sightlines. We further recommend that the regulator explore the possibility of sharing the authority for entering adjoining lands to clear sightlines with provinces and municipalities.

Response 6.4:

Agree. Need to consult with provinces and municipalities. This recommendation might require legislation.

Recommendation 6.5

We recommend that Sections 24(2) and 25(3) of the Railway Safety Act he reviewed with a view to achieving a fair resolution of the issue of compensating private landowners, including a determination as to whether and by whom compensation should be paid.

Response 6.5:

Agree. This is a complex issue that would likely require legislation. The question of compensation covers not only matters under federal jurisdiction but also local authorities who have jurisdiction over lands adjoining railways. The matter should be reviewed with all jurisdictions who have an interest in this matter.

Recommendation 6.6

We recommend that Transport Canada work in concert with the railway industry and other relevant authorities to establish safety standards for all types of railway crossings in Canada, and that, following the determination of acceptable standards, a plan be developed to ensure that all railway crossings meet the new standards within a specified time or be closed.

Response 6.6:

Agree. Work has already been done on the production of a Grade Crossing Manual which will cover all types of crossings. However, one must recognize the realities of the large number of existing crossings, the extremely high cost associated with some of these improvements and the time frame for implementation. This recommendation might require legislation.

Recommendation 6.7

We recommend that Transport Canada undertake and publish a comprehensive evaluation of the impacts and effects of anti-whistling on safety and determine the type of protection required before anti-whistling is implemented at crossings. We further recommend that Transport Canada and the railways not approve any new anti-whistling agreements with municipalities until the review has been completed.

Response 6.7:

Agree. Transport Canada is re-examining the types of protection and other factors that are required before anti-whistling should be implemented. The results of this study will be made available. At present Transport Canada has a guideline setting out conditions where it will generally be acceptable to cease whistling and will, if requested, examine specific locations to verify whether or not they comply with this guideline. It is then a railway decision to cease whistling. There is no evidence to suggest any deficiency in the current guideline and Transport Canada will continue, when requested, to advise the railways if specific locations meet the conditions outlined in the guideline.

Recommendation 6.8

We recommend that Transport Canada develop a comprehensive plan to cut in half the accident rate at Canadian grade crossings within 10 years. The plan should not be limited to rules governing grade crossing improvements and separations, but should include research and education needs.

Response 6.8:

Agree with the objective. This requires the participation of other stakeholders, communities, provinces, industry etc. Transport Canada is preparing a strategy, and is looking at ways to get the best return for its safety dollar investment by redirecting funds to education and awareness campaigns, focusing on high-risk groups, through researching alternative technologies which can alert Canadians of the dangers of grade crossings and through cooperation with industry and other levels of government. The record in Canada is one of continuous improvement, and Transport Canada is committed to maintaining that record. Some legislative changes may be required.

Recommendation 6.9

We recommend that Transport Canada investigate, in cooperation with the appropriate authorities in other levels of government and the railway industry, all financial and technical aspects relating to the use of traffic signals to prevent accidents at rail crossings.

Response 6.9:

Agree.

Recommendation 6.10

We recommend that Transport Canada undertake a review of Canada's standards for grade crossings on high-speed rail lines in conjunction with an analysis of high-speed rail abroad to ensure that Canadian standards are maintained at the highest practical level.

Response 6.10:

Agree. A draft guideline was issued following the Transport Canada mission to France and Sweden in 1993. These standards will be reviewed should high speed rail be implemented in Canada.

Recommendation 6.11

We recommend that Transport Canada, the railway companies and other responsible parties jointly undertake research to achieve increased safety in driver responses at rail crossings, and that such research include an assessment of the technical feasibility, cost and behavioural implications of new technologies.

Response 6.11:

Agree. Transport Canada will identify funding options. Will need to consult with the provinces and railways.

Recommendation 6.12

We recommend that Transport Canada, other authorities and various affected parties sponsor research to determine the most effective ways of understanding and reducing or eliminating trespassing on railway property. The research should deal with behaviour, enforcement, public education and prevention.

Response 6.12:

Agree. Transport Canada will identify funding options. Will need to consult with the railways and provinces.

Recommendation 6.13

We recommend that authority be given to issue tickets for violations of anti-trespassing rules, under either the as yet unproclaimed federal Contraventions Act or the Railway Safety Act.

Response 6.13:

Agree. An amendment to the Railway Safety Act will be sought which will give the power to issue tickets for trespass violations.

Chapter 7: Rail Safety and the Environment

Recommendation 7.1

We recommend that a Memorandum of Understanding between Transport Canada, Environment Canada and the National Transportation Agency be developed for the purpose of ensuring environmental protection as it applies to railway operations.

Response 7.1 :

Agree. A memorandum of understanding between Transport Canada and Environment Canada was signed in April 1995. This provides the framework for continued dialogue and understandings for the rail mode.

Recommendation 7.2

We recommend that all newly acquired rail passenger cars be equipped with toilet systems that have full-retention capability and that, where feasible, existing cars be retrofitted no later than the year 2005.

Response 7.2 :

Agree. For new cars this can be incorporated into the Passenger Car Rules which are currently being developed. VIA is also studying the matter with regard to retrofitting the existing fleet. Any standards developed should also allow for fitting alternate high quality sewage treatment systems to passenger cars.

Recommendation 7.3

We recommend that the National Transportation Act, 1987 be amended to require that any application for a rail abandonment be accompanied by a full assessment of its environmental impact, to include factors such as increased congestion of highways, increased pollutants and risk analysis, and that the results of such an assessment be considered in the approval process.

Response 7.3 :

Agree in principle. Branch line abandonment procedures will be altered to a conveyance process with the changes already proposed to the National Transportation Act, 1987 which will reduce the government decision making process.

Recommendation 7.4

We recommend that Transport Canada and other government agencies review both the current regulatory arrangements and the sources of funding for transportation infrastructure investments for the purpose of creating greater balance between highway and rail. Any policy proposals should address factors such as safety and environmental protection.

Response 7.4 :

Agree. Transport Canada has a policy whereby managers are required to conduct an environmental assessment of any proposed policy or program initiative. See also the response to recommendation 7.1.

Chapter 8: Substance Use and Abuse

Recommendation 8.1

We recommend that Section 18(1) (c) (iv) of the Railway Safety Act be amended so as to clearly give authority to the railways to implement a substance use testing program for employees in safety-sensitive positions. Such testing programs should be in the context of the overall programs of employee counselling and education.

Response 8.1 :

Disagree. Rule G of the Canadian Rail Operating Rules prohibits the use of intoxicants or narcotics by employees subject to duty, or their possession or use while on duty. The violation of this rule allows the railways to take disciplinary action, which can range from having the employee enter an employee assistance program to possible dismissal.

It is Transport Canada’s and the industry’s mutual objective to maintain transportation safety while minimizing intrusion in the operation of industry and the lives of transportation workers. Substance use testing is an extremely complex issue with implications for all modes of transportation and other jurisdictions.

Keeping this in mind, Transport Canada has decided not to introduce federal substance use legislation at this particular time. It is the responsibility of the industry to evaluate and, if required, develop a program tailored to their particular needs such as is being done in the motor carrier industry.

Recommendation 8.2

We recommend that substance use be studied in order to determine the extent of the problem. Any existing programs should be adjusted to reflect the results of the study.

Response 8.2 :

See the response to 8.1.

Chapter 9: Provincially Regulated Railways

Recommendation 9.1

We recommend that provinces without proclaimed legislation and regulation be encouraged to implement their own legislative plan compatible with the federal regime or sign a comprehensive agreement with Transport Canada to perform the inspection, monitoring and auditing of railways within provincial jurisdiction on their behalf.

Response 9.1 :

Agree in principle. A Federal - Provincial Working Group on Railway Safety Regulation was established in late 1994 comprising policy and technical specialists from all provinces which have railway regulation responsibilities. All parties agree with this recommendation and this working group provides the vehicle through which this recommendation can be implemented.

Recommendation 9.2

We recommend that Transport Canada take into account the specific attributes of each class of railway in any agreements with provinces for the inspection of provincial railways.

Response 9.2 :

Agree. The Working Group referred to in the response to recommendation 9.1 agrees with this approach. In most cases it is possible to identify and specify any regulations rules or other operating practices which may not be appropriate for specific provincial railways.

Recommendation 9.3

We recommend a joint federal–provincial effort to clarify the regulatory jurisdiction over industrial spurs.

Response 9.3 :

Agree. The Working Group referred to in the response to recommendation 9.1 agrees that this should be clarified. The first step will be to clarify the legal basis for jurisdiction.

Recommendation 9.4

We recommend that Transport Canada seek agreements with the provinces to establish a national, coordinated regulatory system for railway safety following the implementation of this Committee's regulatory program.

Response 9.4 :

Agree. See the response to recommendation 9.1. The intention is to develop a harmonious system of regulation. A single piece of legislation will not apply to all governments but harmonized/compatible provincial and federal legislation will be developed taking into account individual provincial requirements.

Chapter 10: Safety in the Future

Recommendation 10.1

We recommend that previous Recommendations by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada concerning main track derailments be revisited by both government and industry professionals with a view to raising standards for early detection of rail fatigue, mechanical equipment failure or divergent operating practices.

Response 10.1 :

Agree. All Transportation Safety Board recommendations are examined with great care as a matter of course. The Railway Safety Act provides all the tools necessary to address problems as they arise.

Recommendation 10.2

We recommend that, where any rationalization of the rail infrastructure leaves open the possibility for abandonment of a main line, consideration be given, if financially feasible, to making sections of that main line available for the exclusive use of passenger traffic, in order to reduce congestion and increase safety.

Response 10.2 :

Agree in principle. There is nothing in existing legislation to preclude the acquisition of any lines over which freight operations have been terminated for passenger services exclusively. In the past uneconomic secondary lines have been made available for commuter operations and for inter-city services. Interested governments or passenger carriers need only negotiate with the freight railway on a commercial basis for their acquisition.

Recommendation 10.3

We recommend that Transport Canada and the railways collaborate to undertake research on, and develop, new railway safety technologies, including advanced train control systems, and that all participants strive for a uniformity of application.

Response 10.3 :

Agree. The conduct of research in collaboration with railways to promote identification and acceptance of improved safety systems is an area of activity which is compatible with Transport Canada’s role in Railway Safety. As a regulator, however, the Department must avoid conflicts of interest which might arise through involvement in system development. Collaborative research and testing activities may be important in encouraging improvements in railway safety systems while allowing railways full freedom to develop their own solutions. Such collaborative research may be undertaken subject to available resources.

Recommendation 10.4

We recommend that the Railway Safety Act be amended to provide that all orders, rules or regulations dealing with safety matters and issued by the previous authorities be deemed to have been revoked as of January 1, 1997, but only in respect of the safety matters addressed by those instruments.

Response 10.4 :

Agree in principle. A special effort will be made to identify the rules and orders concerned and to revoke those that are now irrelevant or redundant. Powers already exist to revoke these. It will be necessary to consult with the railways carefully to identify as far as possible the impacts.

Recommendation 10.5

We recommend that Transport Canada maintain and make available a comprehensive, up-to-date volume of all orders and instruments provided for in the Railway Safety Act that are not otherwise published in the Canada Gazette.

Response 10.5 :

Agree. A draft Railway Safety Handbook has been produced that incorporates all rules, regulations and recent orders affecting the operation of the railways. This will likely be made available electronically. The problems identified by the committee related to the large number of often site specific orders issued by the Canadian Transport Commission which related only in part to safety issues.

Recommendation 10.6

We recommend that any new regulations or rules introduced under the Railway Safety Act have a "sunset clause," to ensure that these instruments remain relevant.

Response 10.6 :

Disagree. This would place an unnecessary administrative burden on the parties bearing in mind that the process is very flexible and the railways can propose rule changes to ensure that they remain relevant. All rules are reviewed regularly to ensure their continued relevance.

Recommendation 10.7

We recommend that the Railway Safety Act require a further comprehensive review of its operations five years after any amendments resulting from this Committee's report.

Response 10.7 :

Disagree. Overall, the review indicates the Act is working well and is taking the right approach. The Department is continually reviewing all legislation within its mandate and will continue to ensure that all legislation remains relevant. Government can ask at any time to have legislation reviewed.

Appendix: Other Issues

Recommendation A.1

We recommend that the term "alter" in Section 4 of the Railway Safety Act be amended to include to reconstruct or change a railway work in form, but not in function, and not to include "maintain." We further recommend that the term "maintenance" be defined within the Railway Safety Act to include any type of work designed to ensure serviceability, but which does not alter the geometry of the structure.

Response A.1:

Agree. This will require legislation.

Recommendation A.2

We recommend that Section 4(4) of the Railway Safety Act be amended to include the safety of the environment, in addition to the safety of persons and property, in considering the safety of railway operations.

Response A.2:

Disagree. This is already carried out within the framework of the existing legislation. The new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act provides adequate safeguards.

Recommendation A.3

We recommend that Section 10 of the Railway Safety Act be amended to allow for the commencement of a railway work:

1. on receipt of notice from all parties to whom the railway must send a notice that they do not object to such a work; or
2. where objections have been filed to the proposed work,
1. upon approval by the Minister (as is currently the case); or
2. upon withdrawal of all objections.

Response A.3:

Agree. This will require legislation.

Recommendation A.4

We recommend that Section 12(1) of the Railway Safety Act be amended to remove the requirement for a crossing to have been in existence for public use for at least three years in order to be eligible for a grant application.

Response A.4:

Study. New crossings are built to current standards and should not need to be upgraded soon after construction. Priority should be placed on funding for safety improvements on older installations. However, there may be the occasion where this additional flexibility could prove useful and this will be reviewed.

Recommendation A.5

We recommend that Section 12 of the Railway Safety Act be amended to allow a grant to also be issued after a crossing work has been commenced.

Response A.5:

Agree. This will require legislation.

Recommendation A.6

We recommend that Section 16 of the Railway Safety Act be amended to also allow grade crossing cost-apportionment by the National Transportation Agency after a work has been commenced.

Response A.6:

Agree. This will facilitate the completion of works required to abate threats to railway safety. Railways have become reluctant to proceed with crossing work until after Agency approval has been obtained, causing unnecessary delays in completion of this work. This will require legislation.

Recommendation A.7

We recommend that Section 16 of the Railway Safety Act be amended to allow the National Transportation Agency to formalize crossing cost-apportionment agreements by means of an order of the Agency.

Response A.7:

Agree. Legalizing the cost-apportionment would remove any ambiguities associated with the obligations of the participating parties. This would require legislation.

Recommendation A.8

We recommend that the designation of "safety-sensitive" positions be determined by the rail industry and implemented by way of a rule.

Response A.8:

Agree.

Recommendation A.9

We recommend that Section 19(4)(a) of the Railway Safety Act be amended to permit the Minister, in the event that new information comes to light, to subsequently modify the terms and conditions which may have been specified in the notice.

Response A.9:

Agree. There is a need to consult those affected. This might require legislation.

Recommendation A.10

We recommend that the exemption provisions of Section 22 of the Railway Safety Act be extended to any security regulation or measure adopted under the provisions of Section 39 of the Act.

Response A.10 :

Agree. This will require legislation.

Recommendation A.11

We recommend that the Railway Safety Act be amended to replace the term "railway safety inspector" with that of "railway safety officer."

Response A.11 :

Agree. This will more accurately reflect the role of the railway safety officer in the future. This will require legislation.

Recommendation A.12

We recommend that Section 28 of the Railway Safety Act be amended to permit a railway safety inspector to enter the premises of a railway company for safety audit purposes. Section 28 should be further amended to permit an inspector to require the production of documents or information needed to carry out the audit.

Response A.12 :

Agree. This will require legislation.

Recommendation A13

We recommend that Section 31 of the Railway Safety Act be amended to permit a notice or order of one inspector to be altered or removed by another inspector when the inspector who issued the notice or order is unable to act, and that the circumstances of the inspector's inability to act he recorded in the amending document.

Response A.13 :

Agree. This will require legislation.

Recommendation A.14

We recommend that Section 31 of the Railway Safety Act be amended to permit a notice or order to be issued to a third party owning, leasing or using railway equipment, in addition to the railway concerned.

Response A.14 :

Agree. This will require legislation.

Recommendation A.15

We recommend that Section 35(1) of the Railway Safety Act pertaining to medical information be amended to eliminate the 12-month time period between medical examinations and to stipulate that the period between medical examinations be specified in a rule to be filed under Section 19 or 20, or in the railway company's safety plan.

Response A.15 :

Agree. This will require legislation.

Recommendation A.16

We recommend that Section 46 of the Railway Safety Act be amended to state that approved rules filed under Section 19 or 20 shall be deemed not to be regulations for the purposes of the Statutory Instruments Act, but shall he registered and published in the Canada Gazette.

Response A.16 :

Study. In principle, Transport Canada supports the need for public access. This has to be reviewed in light of recommendation 4.7.

Recommendation A.17

We recommend that Section 49 of the Railway Safety Act be amended to provide that rules made under Section 19 or 20 also prevail to the extent of an inconsistency.

Response A.17 :

Agree. This will require legislation.

Recommendation A.18

We recommend that Sections 91 and 93 of the Railway Safety Act be proclaimed.

Response A.18 :

Agree. This will be covered with the proposed amendments to the Railway Act.

Recommendation A.19

We recommend that all inspectors appointed under the Railway Safety. Act also be appointed inspectors under the Safe Containers Convention Act and that they receive training as required to exercise SCCA functions.

Response A.19 :

Agree. Railway Safety Inspectors who need designation under the SCCA have been so designated.

Recommendation A.20

We recommend that the railways remove cross-bucks following abandonment of a rail line that will not be conveyed, and that the road authority be so advised.

Response A.20 :

Agree. Transport Canada has contacted the railways to obtain a clear commitment.