Highlights: Auditor General’s Follow-up Audit on Rail Safety Oversight
The following table pulls direct quotations from the follow-up audit on rail safety oversight, and describes the positive and negative findings in each section of the audit report.
|
|
Positive Findings |
Negative Findings |
|
Overall Finding |
Para 5.18: Overall, Transport Canada made progress in addressing recommendations from our 2013 audit in the areas followed up on; however we also found that the department still had important improvements to make. The department strengthened its approach to planning and prioritizing activities to oversee rail safety and in following up on companies’ plans and actions to address deficiencies noted in inspections.
|
Para 5.19: However, Transport Canada was unable to show whether departmental oversight activities have contributed to improved rail safety. In addition, the department did not assess the effectiveness of the railways’ safety management systems- despite the many reports over the last 14 years recommending that Transport Canada audit and assess these systems. |
|
Risk-based Planning for Oversight |
Para 5.20: We found that Transport Canada improved its risk-based planning for oversight. In particular, the department significantly increased the number of its planned risk-based inspections. We also found that Transport Canada made progress in conducting more audits of railway companies’ safety management systems. |
Para 5.21: However, we found that the department did not measure the overall effectiveness of its oversight activities. Properly assessing the effectiveness of the department’s oversight activities is complex because other factors, such as new technologies, can also improve rail safety. Nonetheless, it remains crucial to determine whether the department’s oversight is having a positive impact. We found that the department could not demonstrate the extent to which its oversight activities have improved the railway companies’ compliance with regulations that mitigate key safety risks. This is an important element of measuring its oversight effectiveness.
|
|
Conducting Audits and Inspections |
Para 5.46: We found that since the 2013 audit, Transport Canada made progress in assessing whether railway companies corrected safety issues identified in departmental inspections and audit of safety management systems.
Para 5.55: We found that for most of the inspections and audits we examined, Transport Canada assessed whether railway companies took corrective actions when non-compliances were identified. In our view, Transport Canada’s process to validate the railway companies’ plans to address problems was reasonable.
|
Para 5.48: We also found that the department did not assess the effectiveness of the safety management systems that each railway implemented. Departmental audits of these systems determines only whether railway companies complies with specific regulations and not whether the overall systems themselves resulted in greater safety.
Para 5.60: The department’s standards for on-site audits and inspections primarily focused on how quickly the railway companies needed to provide a plan to correct the issues- and not on confirming railway companies made timely corrections to the deficiencies affecting safety. |
|
Overall Conclusion |
Para 5.70: The department made important improvements to both its safety oversight planning and inspection follow-up, but it did not assess whether its oversight activities improved rail safety. |
Para 5.69: We concluded that Transport Canada had not fully implemented all of the selected recommendations from our 2013 audit report on rail safety regarding the department’ oversight of the safe transportation of people and goods.
Para 5.70: Also, the department did not manage measure the effectiveness of the railway companies’ safety management systems or integrate the results of those audits into its rail safety oversight planning. |