Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 158, Number 50: Railway Personnel Training and Qualifications Regulations

December 14, 2024

Statutory authority
Railway Safety Act

Sponsoring department
Department of Transport

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations or the Order.)

Executive summary

Issues

The Railway Employee Qualification Standards Regulations (REQSR) have not been updated since they came into force in 1987 under the authority of older legislation: The National Transportation Act and the Railway Act. Significant operational changes (e.g. crew size, freight size, accelerated training programs) in the rail industry have occurred over the past 35 years. Given the significant changes associated with the railway operating environment, employees do not necessarily have sufficient on-the-job training (OJT) and/or supervision as they advance from junior positions into more senior positions. Likewise, training and supervision standards are inconsistent across the industry.

In addition, railway employees in positions critical to safety are not always receiving sufficient continuing training on critical changes affecting railway safety, such as new equipment, internal procedures, regulations, and exemptions.

Positions critical to safety include any railway position directly engaged in the operation of trains in main track or yard service or engaged in rail traffic control. As technology in the rail industry has evolved, new positions have been created. There is now a need to identify remote control locomotive operators and rail traffic controllers as positions critical to safety since they have a direct impact on the movement of locomotives.

The REQSR do not include a CRM component despite the fact that CRM is an industry standard for aviation and marine transportation. CRM seeks to limit or eliminate human errors by recognizing the importance of cognitive and interpersonal skills, thereby improving safety. CRM targets a crew’s skills, abilities, attitudes, communication, situational awareness, problem solving, and teamwork to ensure that crews successfully interact with each other, their equipment, and their environment to effectively manage threats, errors, and unexpected conditions that may be encountered.

There are no provisions in the REQSR that require a newly qualified employee to be accompanied by an experienced employee. Investigations led by the TSB of past railway accidents and near-accidents found that “human factors” such as poor decision-making may play a prominent role in incidents that threaten the safety of railway employees and Canadians more generally. A recent TSB investigation into a 2016 incident in Ontario involving the uncontrolled movement of 74 rail cars (72 loaded and 2 empty) for about three miles revealed that 2 junior employees were paired to work on the assignment. Although the 2 employees were qualified, they both had limited experience working on that assignment. While the incident did not result in any injuries, derailment, or release of dangerous goods, the TSB concluded that pairing two employees with limited experience on the assignment was a contributing factor in the uncontrolled movement. TSB also noted that several gaps remained in the existing regulatory framework related to training and qualification standards.

Following the investigation, in June 2018, the TSB recommended (R18-02) that the REQSR be updated to address gaps for railway employees in positions critical to safety related to training qualification, requalification standards and regulatory oversight. The TSB contended that, if gaps in the current REQSR were not addressed, railway employees in positions critical to safety may not be sufficiently trained or experienced to perform their duties safely. Additionally, the TSB was concerned that without amendments to the REQSR, Transport Canada (TC) may not be able to conduct effective regulatory oversight and enforcement of training programs.

In a Safety Advisory Letter (06/23) following a fatal occurrence (R23D0045) in April 2023 involving a conductor and a conductor trainee in Rivière-des-Prairies, in Montréal, Quebec, the TSB encouraged TC to communicate with railway companies to ensure that their current training programs contain requirements for the supervision of new employees during field training, and that these requirements be implemented on a systematic and ongoing basis.

In August 2022, the TSB recommended (R22-05) that REQSR be updated to require Canadian railway companies to develop and implement modern initial and recurring CRM training as part of certification training for railway operating employees.

Finally, it should be noted that the REQSR were made under the authority of the Canada Transportation Act and are not aligned with the Railway Safety Act (RSA). In 2006, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities initiated the Railway Safety Act review and found that the REQSR did not have provisions for the certification of railway operating employees by Transport Canada. To address this gap, the railway industry, including the Railway Association of Canada (RAC), drafted the Rules Respecting Minimum Qualification Standards for Railway Employees. These were submitted to TC for approval in 2009. However, the REQSR were never amended accordingly. Therefore, for consistency and alignment with the current legislative framework and related regulations, this regulatory proposal would repeal the REQSR and replace them with the proposed Regulations made under the authority of the RSA.

Background

The REQSR, established in 1987, currently set requirements related to the training and qualifications of railway employees.

Under the REQSR, railway companies are required to provide training to employees for the purposes of performing the duties associated with each occupational category. Training programs must cover all the subjects/items required for a person to qualify to perform the duties. Railway companies are also required to evaluate, through proper examination and evaluation with an 80% passing mark, if employees meet qualification requirements for their occupational category. Railway companies will issue a certificate (a wallet-sized card) to qualified employees. In addition, to ensure that railway employees remain qualified to perform their duties, railway companies have employees in an occupational category re-examined every three years. Furthermore, the REQSR include a requirement for railway companies to notify the Railway Transport Committee (the Committee) of the Canadian Transport Commission, now the Canadian Transportation Agency, of changes to examination formats or methods of assessing on-the-job competence used by the company, and to submit to the Committee, on a yearly basis, a comprehensive report on its employee training programs. This requirement is no longer necessary, as the practice is outdated and TC is of the view that inspection of certification is sufficient to confirm compliance without a requirement to also submit a report.

According to recent statistics from the TSB, factors assigned to non-main-track collisions were mostly human-factor-related (86%) in 2022. The improper positioning of movements and handling of switches was assigned most often (54%) as a factor. Meanwhile, action-related factors also accounted for 25% of assigned factors in 2020 and 51% of all assigned factors for non-main-track derailment accidents. These factors include departure from prescribed procedures, such as failure to protect or failure to secure. Failure to protect, such as improper positioning of movements and handling of switches, was assigned most often (54%) as a factor.

According to the TSB’s 2021 Annual Report — Occupational Injuries in the Canadian Federal Jurisdiction (PDF), fatal injury frequency rate is defined as the reported fatal injuries per one billion hours worked. “Higher … FIFR values is an indication of higher risk within a specific unit of analysis (industry sector, organization, workplace, etc.) based on factors outside of hours worked, such as the nature of the work itself. ... Given the small number of fatal injuries reported to the Labour Program each year compared to the number of disabling injuries, any change in this number will have an impact on both an individual sector’s FIFR and the federal jurisdiction FIFR. This results in fluctuating FIFR values over time.” Every effort still needs to be made to mitigate the risk associated with the rail work environment. Government intervention is needed to ensure that the training and qualification regime reflects modern railway operations to follow standardized prescriptive training approaches like other modes of transportation (e.g. aviation and marine).

Based on information available online and a survey conducted by TC with railway companies, some industry practices were found to already exceed the existing requirements under the REQSR to adapt to the industry changes over the years. All railway companies that responded to the survey indicated they already offer employees familiarization trips within the territory in which they will operate in addition to the knowledge training and OJT required by the REQSR. The proposed Regulations intend to formalize these practices and make the requirements consistent for all railway companies by setting a minimum requirement for familiarization trips.

Training represents an opportunity for railway companies to reduce accidents caused by human factors. Human factors is a term that encompasses all the elements contributing to a workplace accident that can be directly attributed to operators, workers, or other personnel. Human factors can include wilful violations of safety rules as well as inattention, fatigue, and intoxication.

CRM is a human factors training process that has been employed in the commercial aviation industry for over 25 years. According to the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): “CRM training focuses on situation awareness, communication skills, teamwork, task allocation and decision-making within a comprehensive framework of standard operating procedures.” Since its adoption in commercial aviation, CRM has been credited with contributing to a marked decrease in accidents caused by human factors because it ensures that all levels of training include threat and error management, interpersonal communication, situational awareness, leadership, teamwork, problem solving and decision-making.

Objective

The proposed Regulations would update the training and qualification regime to reflect the significant changes that have occurred in railway operations since the current regulations came into force in 1987. The objective of the proposed Regulations is to enhance crew safety and the safety of railway operations more broadly through robust training and the pairing of less experienced employees with more experienced employees for all positions that have been declared to be critical to safe railway operations.

Description

This regulatory proposal would repeal the REQSR and replace them with the proposed Regulations. The proposed Regulations would expand the occupational categories for positions critical to safety that are subject to training requirements, and expand and update training and certification requirements for all positions critical to safety. Training requirements would be applicable to all persons occupying positions critical to safety, regardless of whether they are an operational employee, a contractor, or a management employee. Additionally, the proposed Regulations would no longer require railway companies to notify the Committee of changes to examination formats or methods of assessing on-the-job competence used by the company, or to submit to the Committee a comprehensive report on its employee training programs.

It should be noted that the repeal of the REQSR does not appear in the text of the proposed Regulations, as it has been drafted as a separate instrument, the Order Repealing the Railway Employee Qualification Standards Regulations; however, the proposed repeal is covered under this Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement as it is considered an integral part of this regulatory proposal.

Positions critical to safety

Positions critical to safety include any railway position directly engaged in the operation of trains in main track or yard service or engaged in rail traffic control. The REQSR include training requirements for four positions critical to safety (locomotive engineer, conductor, yard foreman, transfer hostler). The proposed Regulations would expand the list of positions by adding remote control locomotive operators and rail traffic controllers.

The designation of the positions critical to safety is required to outline the training regime that applies to them. As some railway employees may perform multiple duties across different positions critical to safety, the proposed Regulations would allow employees to hold multiple certificates if they have received the appropriate training.

The proposed Regulations would also apply to any person (e.g. a contractor or supervisor) that performs any of the duties associated with a position critical to safety.

Table: Positions critical to safety (REQSR vs. proposed Regulations)

Positions critical to safety	REQSR	Proposed Regulations
Locomotive engineers	X	X
Conductors	X	X
Yard foreman / yard person	X	X
Transfer hostler	X	X
Remote control locomotive operators	N/A	New
Rail traffic controllers	N/A	New

Pairing for less experienced employees

Under the proposed Regulations, a railway company would require a person performing the duties associated with a position critical to safety to be paired with a more experienced certificate holder until they have acquired at least two years of experience (i.e. two years since their certificate was issued).

The certificate holder paired with a person (or persons) who has less than two years of experience would need to have carried out their duties for at least two consecutive years in the last five years. This requirement would help to ensure that newly certified employees (i.e. less than two years since their initial training certificate was issued) can gain valuable OJT experience, thereby helping to reduce and prevent unsafe practices and non-compliance.

Training requirements

The proposed Regulations would outline training required to obtain certification for a position critical to safety. A person holding a position critical to safety is someone whose job involves activities that, if not performed correctly, could lead to serious harm or injury to themselves or others. The proposed Regulations aim to formalize practices used within the rail industry to promote consistency across railway companies.

The proposed Regulations would also introduce some new training requirements for positions critical to safety, as outlined in the table below.

Table: Training requirements (REQSR vs. proposed Regulations)

Types of training	REQSR	Proposed Regulations
Initial training (includes the three elements below)	X	X
Knowledge-based training	X	X
On-the-job training (OJT)	X	X
Familiarization training	N/A	New
Continuing training	N/A	New
Integrating crew resource management components into all training	N/A	New
Non-exercise of duties training	N/A	New
Certificate renewal training	X	X
Transfer of certificate (from one railway company to another)	N/A	New

The initial training in the REQSR consists of knowledge-based training and OJT. The proposed Regulations would build on existing requirements by adding familiarization training to the initial training requirements.

Knowledge-based training provides the person the knowledge to carry out their duties safely, including knowledge of applicable instruments, federal legislation, and any of the railway company’s procedures, standards, instructions, bulletins, or other internal documents that may affect railway safety. Instructors can be employees from the railway company, or training service providers qualified by each railway company. Instructors would be required to have completed the training within the previous five years and have obtained a mark of at least 90% on their most recent examination. Furthermore, an examination would be administered by the railway company to each candidate to test the person’s knowledge of the subjects that they need to know to carry out their duties safely. The subjects, which are outlined in the proposed Regulations, include rules, regulations, federal legislation, the railway company’s procedures, standards, instructions, and bulletins that may affect railway safety. The passing mark would be set at 80%. All these requirements would remain the same as existing requirements in the REQSR.

Once knowledge-based training has been completed successfully, the person would take OJT to gain experience working in situations very similar to those they would encounter on a daily basis. OJT is generally provided to employees directly at their worksite. OJT would ensure that the person has the practical, experiential skills to be able to carry out their duties safely. OJT provides a hands-on component that allows the candidate to learn the duties of their position while completing job tasks measured against a defined level of performance.

The analysis conducted by Transport Canada considered the role of simulators for evaluation purposes and concluded that while simulators can replicate many scenarios, they would not capture every nuance of real-world conditions. In addition, it was determined that some skills and behaviours are best evaluated in real-world settings where stress and unpredictability play a role. Because of this, simulators would not be permitted to be used for evaluation purposes.

The familiarization training would provide a person the understanding of key elements of the territory in which they operate. For example, topographic features, physical characteristics of the railway work (e.g. grade and curves), equipment handling, signals, and at least one trip by the candidate in their designated area using the railway equipment to be operated.

The proposed Regulations would also require railway companies to provide continuing training to certificate holders as soon as feasible if there is a change to the elements of the knowledge-based training, including applicable instruments, federal legislation, any of the railway company’s procedures, standards, instructions, bulletins, or other internal documents that may affect railway safety. This requirement would ensure that certificate holders are up to date in changes and training since they were last trained.

In addition, any person that has not carried out the duties of a position critical to safety within the last 12 months, but still has a valid certificate, would be required to receive OJT with an 80% passing mark before returning to duty.

The proposed Regulations would include requirements for CRM elements in all training types mentioned above. Railway companies would be required to ensure that all levels of training include threat and error management, interpersonal communication, situational awareness, leadership, teamwork, problem solving and decision-making.

The proposed Regulations would provide flexibility for railway companies to develop their own training programs tailored to the unique nature of their operations. To assist railway companies in this task, Transport Canada developed and shared a guidance document in May 2023, entitled Best practices for crew resource management training.

Training record

The proposed Regulations would require railway companies to create a training record for each person who takes the training and undergoes the required examinations and evaluations. These records would need to be made available to the Minister upon request.

Training records would need to be kept for at least six years after they are created. This differs from the current REQSR, which requires companies to retain the records during employment.

Certificates

The proposed Regulations would include issuance criteria for a certificate instead of including a definition about what a certificate means. The issuance criteria would specify that, to issue a certificate, the railway company would need to ensure that the candidate has completed the knowledge-based examination and the OJT evaluation, and has obtained a passing mark of 80%. The proposed Regulations would also stipulate that a person seeking a certificate for a position critical to safety would need to complete familiarization training. The proposed Regulations would continue to require certificate holders to produce their certificate on request by any person who is designated to enforce the Railway Safety Act; however, the proposed Regulations would not prescribe the format of the certification. This would allow railway companies to provide alternative certificate formats such as electronic certificates to be issued and stored on devices. Certificates would be validated against the person’s training record through routine inspections conducted by TC.

Finally, the proposed Regulations would maintain the existing requirement in the REQSR that evaluators and examiners need to have received a mark of 90% in their respective areas to be designated as evaluators and examiners by the railway company.

Renewal of certificate

The proposed Regulations would stipulate that a certificate expires three years after its date of issuance. This requirement would be the same as the REQSR. Railway companies would need to ensure that certificate renewal training, which meets the requirements of the proposed Regulations, is provided to certificate holders before their certificates expire. If a certificate expires before being renewed, the initial training would need to be retaken and the employee would need to be recertified before resuming their duties.

Non-exercise of duties (return to work)

If a person certified in a position critical to safety has been absent from their position for 12 consecutive months or more and returns to work, the railway company would need to renew the employee’s certificate by verifying that the person still possesses the knowledge, skills, and abilities to carry on their duties. Depending on the results of the verification, training may need to be provided before the person resumes their duties.

Transfer of certificate

Railway companies hiring new employees that were issued a certificate under a different railway company would be responsible for ensuring that the certificate holder is able to perform all the duties of their new position safely. Depending on the specific/unique responsibilities of the position, the rail company may need to provide additional training to the certificate holder. As an example, a locomotive engineer could require additional familiarization training if they were working in different operating conditions even if their knowledge-based training remains valid.

Regulatory development

Consultation

Transport Canada has consulted affected stakeholders, including railway companies, unions representing railway employees, the Transportation Safety Board (TSB), Labour Canada, and internal stakeholders since November 2021.

The consultation on proposed changes to modernize the REQSR was posted on Let’s Talk Transportation on November 15, 2021. Stakeholders had 60 days to provide their feedback.

During the consultation period, two comments were submitted online from Ontario Northland and the Western Canadian Short Line Railway Association. Transport Canada had targeted stakeholder meetings with the Railway Association of Canada (RAC), VIA Rail, unions representing federally regulated railway employees, and the Province of British Columbia (Technical Safety BC). Written comments were submitted to TC from the RAC and the Ontario Ministry of Transport (MTO). Transport Canada considered all stakeholder comments and, where possible, made amendments to the regulatory proposal. A “What We Heard” report was posted online summarizing the feedback. The comments received related to the themes discussed below.

Scope of application

Some unions expressed concerns respecting the scope of application of the proposed Regulations as they would have preferred to see more positions added to the list of positions critical to safety (e.g. diesel mechanics, rail mechanics and diesel attendants). They also recommended that consideration be given to identifying different training requirements based on specific job categories.

In response to this feedback, the proposed Regulations specify that the following positions are critical to safe railway operations: locomotive engineer, conductor, transfer hostler, yard person, remote control locomotive operator and rail traffic controller. The proposed Regulations would require that OJT training programs be established, which meet the needs of each of these positions critical to safety. For example, rail traffic controllers have different needs with respect to specific OJT requirements than other positions critical to safety that are more operations oriented, and the training provided should reflect that.

One union also recommended the inclusion of diesel mechanics, rail mechanics and diesel attendants within the scope of updated training requirements. Considering that positions critical to safety only include those positions directly involved in the operation and movement of trains, TC determined that mechanics and diesel attendants should not be captured by the proposed Regulations.

Flexibility to reflect varying complexity of operations

An industry representative recommended that the regulatory approach should be flexible to account for differences between freight and passenger operations, as well as the complexity of operations (e.g. shortline versus Class I railway).

Both freight and passenger railways share some common positions critical to safety; however, the risks, challenges, and operating environments affecting those positions can differ significantly. The proposed Regulations would provide railway companies with the flexibility to tailor and adjust training elements depending on the nature of their operations.

Training requirements

Industry and labour representatives provided feedback on various elements of training types that would be covered by the proposed Regulations. The comments received relate to OJT, familiarization, non-exercise of duties training, continuing training, and other components of the proposed Regulations.

Some unions recommended that an OJT schedule be developed and incorporated by reference to outline required courses to be taken as part of the OJT without having to resort to making amendments through the regulatory process. The proposed Regulations would require that OJT be sufficient to ensure that the person has the required knowledge and skills to carry out their duties safely, and include a hands-on component that allows the person to learn the duties of their position while completing job tasks measured against a defined level of performance. However, the proposed Regulations would not prescribe (or incorporate by reference) a schedule for OJT so that railway companies have the flexibility to develop training programs that are appropriate for their operations.

Labour representatives recommended that familiarization training include a yard component. Currently, as part of their training policies, railway companies include a yard component within their familiarization training for new employees. The proposed Regulations would formalize this practice by requiring that railway companies provide familiarization training, which would include a yard component, for all positions critical to safety.

Some unions disagreed with the proposed 12-month time frame to trigger the non-exercise of duties training requirement. One stakeholder suggested that this requirement was too prescriptive as it did not consider the relative experience and aptitude of individual employees. A railway company advised that the 12-month time frame would be too long an absence at an industrial, commuter, or shortline railway. After considering these different viewpoints, Transport Canada determined that 12 months would be a reasonable time frame to address differing views of stakeholders which recommended a time frame that varied between 6 and 18 months. However, it should be noted that railway companies would have flexibility to set a stricter threshold (i.e. less than 12 months) and/or to provide supplementary training as they see fit.

Some railway companies recommended that the proposed Regulations should identify a threshold to designate when and how continuing training should be done. In light of these comments, the proposed Regulations would specify that continuing training be offered to update employees on any recent changes in the requirements of the instruments referred to in subsection 10(1) of the Railway Safety Management System Regulations, 2015; any federal legislation that may affect railway safety; and/or any of the railway company’s procedures, standards, instructions, bulletins or other internal documents that may affect railway safety. This would help ensure clarity and certainty for railway companies about when continuing training needs to be provided.

Pairing requirements for newly certified employees

Stakeholders had mixed reactions to TC’s original plan, which was to establish a requirement for newly certified employees to work “under the supervision” of an employee with at least two years’ experience. In light of concerns expressed by some stakeholders, the proposed Regulations specify that newly certified employees need to be “paired” with — as opposed to “supervised” by — more experienced employees. Also, the proposed Regulations do not prescribe any conditions around the pairing other than that the more experienced employee must have carried out the relevant duties for at least two consecutive years within the last five years. Transport Canada believes that this approach would provide railway companies with flexibility to develop unique approaches to meeting the requirement that suit their individual business needs. In addition, guidance material is being developed and would be shared with industry on the date that the proposed Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

Crew resource management

As the effectiveness of CRM training has been demonstrated in the aviation and marine sectors and given that some railways have already started to integrate parts of crew management training into their training programs, TC’s initial plan was for the proposed Regulations to require that railway companies establish a specific CRM training program. However, one railway company expressed concerns that requiring a specific CRM training program in the proposed Regulations could limit or constrain the design of its training program. The stakeholder suggested that, instead of requiring a specific CRM training program, as originally proposed by TC, the proposed Regulations should permit CRM to be embedded within the content of other training programs to allow for a more holistic approach to teaching decision-making and leadership skills. Based on these comments, the proposed Regulations would include a requirement that a railway company must establish and implement a training program designed to ensure the safe exercise of duties with respect to the positions critical to safety, which includes the element of crew resource management.

Qualifications of instructors and evaluators

The proposed Regulations include certification requirements for instructors and evaluators. For example, for OJT instructors and evaluators, this encompasses holding a certificate for the position for which they are instructing or evaluating and having at least two years of experience relevant to the position being instructed or evaluated. In addition, OJT evaluators would be required to have three months of consecutive service in the designated area within the last six months where the OJT training is to take place.

A railway company expressed concerns that the proposed certification requirements for instructors and evaluators may be too prescriptive, explaining that more formal requirements, including examinations and evaluations, are likely to stifle the delivery of continuing training and impose significant additional cost.

TC acknowledges that the proposed certification requirements would carry costs, but concluded nevertheless that instructors and evaluators should be obliged to meet specific minimum requirements. Given the critical role that instructors and evaluators play in ensuring consistency in training quality, and the existing nature of continued training, instructors and evaluators need to be held to a higher standard. These individuals are responsible for the proper transfer of information, which in turn, helps to ensure a safe working environment. Therefore, despite the concerns raised, no flexibilities were considered in relation to the proposed certification requirements.

Examinations

Some labour representatives recommended additional regulatory oversight for examinations. These stakeholders advised that, to their knowledge, no employee had ever failed an examination and that it was important to have uniform training across all organizations to promote and ensure compliance.

To address stakeholder concerns, the proposed Regulations would further define what an examiner is required to perform in the evaluation of an examination, which includes providing a mark to the person writing the examination, confirming the mark is at least 80% to pass an examination, and providing the railway company with a signed document indicating the mark given.

Approval of training programs

Some unions recommended that the proposed Regulations include a mechanism for TC to approve training programs before they are implemented. Transport Canada’s position is that it is the responsibility of regulated companies to develop and implement the training programs and, therefore, the proposed Regulations do not include such a mechanism.

Transition period for new regulatory regime

It was recommended by a railway company that TC include a transition period for the proposed Regulations to come into force and exempt existing employees under the REQSR. To ensure that stakeholders benefit from enough time to review and revise their training programs to meet the new requirements, the proposed Regulations would come into force two years after the registration date. Additionally, the proposed regulations would also allow for certificates issued under the REQSR to remain valid for a period of three years.

Modern treaty obligations and Indigenous engagement and consultation

An assessment was done in accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation to determine whether the proposed Regulations are likely to give rise to modern treaty obligations.

The assessment examined the geographical scope and subject matter of the proposed Regulations in relation to modern treaties in effect.

The proposed Regulations are national in scope and would apply to regional railway companies – one of which is Tshiuetin Rail Transportation (TRT), jointly owned by the signatory (Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach) of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement (NEQA) – a modern treaty partner located in the James Bay area in Northern Quebec. TRT provides regular rail service in the community of Schefferville.

Reviewing the information provided in the proposal and consulting treaty obligations as provided in the Modern Treaty Management Environment (MTME), TC did not find any treaty obligation at this stage. However, to maintain the spirit and intent of modern treaties, TC will notify the treaty partner – the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach - when the proposed Regulations are pre-published in the Canada Gazette, Part I. Engagement with the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach may also help identify any clause of the treaty, which could be relevant to the proposal.

Instrument choice

Regulations were determined to be the most appropriate instrument to enhance crew safety and reduce rail safety risks associated with human factors. Regulations are needed to prescribe robust for all positions that have been declared to be critical to safe railway operations and to ensure that less experienced employees are routinely paired with more experienced employees.

As outlined previously, the TSB found that the majority of non-main-track collisions were related to human factors. The TSB conducted investigations into five occurrences and investigations since 2002, including the fatality of a crew member, that were deemed to be directly related to deficiencies in operating crew training and the related gaps in the REQSR. The TSB concluded that, if safeguards are not established in regulations to ensure that crews are not only qualified, but also possess sufficient operational experience, there would be an increased risk of operational errors and accidents. Likewise, the TSB concluded that, in the absence of regulatory amendments, TC would not be able to conduct effective regulatory oversight and enforcement of training programs for management and unionized operating crews, remote control locomotive operators, rail traffic controllers, and contract trainers, which would, consequently, increase the risk of unsafe train operations.^{footnote 1}

Railway companies have acknowledged that implementing new training techniques and elements, such as CRM, would help to reduce accidents caused by human factors, wilful violations of safety rules, and inattention, fatigue, and intoxication. The proposed Regulations would ensure that recognized training standards and practices are formalized and made consistent for all railway companies.

If the status quo were maintained, training practices would remain out of step with innovation seen in the railway industry. Given the potential harm (e.g. loss of life, property damage, environmental damage) that could result from a rail safety incident it is important that the GoC ensure that rail companies are providing a consistent level of training through regulations. Non-regulatory options, such as outreach or policy guidelines would not be sufficient to ensure a minimum level of training across the rail industry because they would not be mandatory or enforceable and, as such, would not ensure that all railway companies apply a consistent standard.

Regulatory analysis

The proposed Regulations would create a safer work environment for railway operators by addressing gaps in training, qualification, and re-qualification requirements. They would also formalize some existing training and practices in the rail industry. In addition, to respond to the TSB’s recommendations, the proposed Regulations would integrate the CRM components into all types of training and introduce pairing requirements. The regulatory oversight regime would now apply to any person performing any of the duties normally done by someone occupying a position declared critical to safe railway operations, including contractors and supervisors.

It is estimated that the proposed Regulations would result in total costs of $32.01 million (present value in 2023 Canadian dollars, discounted to the base year of 2025 at 7% discount rate) between 2025 and 2036.

A cost-benefit analysis report containing the complete list of assumptions and sources is available upon request.

Analytical framework

The cost-benefit analysis of the proposed Regulations is conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat’s (TBS) Policy on Cost-Benefit Analysis. The scope of this analysis is at the societal level and impacts attributed to Canadians. Where possible, impacts are quantified and monetized, with only the direct costs and benefits for stakeholders being considered in the cost-benefit analysis.

Benefits and costs associated with the proposed Regulations are assessed by comparing the baseline scenario against the regulatory scenario. The baseline scenario depicts what is likely to happen in the future if the Government of Canada does not implement the proposed Regulations. The regulatory scenario provides information on the intended outcomes as a result of the proposed Regulations.

The proposed Regulations would provide a more comprehensive and robust training and qualification regime by replacing the existing Railway Employee Qualification Standards Regulations.

The time frame used in the analysis is 12 years from 2025 to 2036, with the year 2025 being when the proposed Regulations would be registered. This time frame captures the compliance transition period of two years after the registration date of the proposed Regulations.

Unless otherwise stated, benefits and costs are estimated in present values expressed in 2023 Canadian dollars, discounted to the base year 2025 at a 7% discount rate, for the period between 2025 and 2036.

Affected stakeholders

The proposed Regulations would apply to all railway companies operating on federally regulated track in Canada and any person performing any of the duties normally done by someone occupying positions declared critical to safe railway operations.

A total of 21 Canadian active railway companies are captured in this analysis. In addition, five United States–based companies are also expected to be impacted; however, they are not included in the analysis in accordance with Canada’s Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) Guide for Regulatory Proposals.

The proposed Regulations would apply to the following positions: locomotive engineer, conductor, transfer hostler, yard person, remote control locomotive operator, and rail traffic controller.

Baseline and regulatory scenarios

Baseline scenario

Under the baseline scenario, railway companies subject to the REQSR are required to provide training to employees for the purposes of performing the duties associated with each occupational category. Training programs cover all the subjects/items required for a person to qualify to perform their duties. Railway companies evaluate, through examination, to determine if employees meet qualification requirements, and then provide certification. Under the REQSR, training requirements apply to only four positions declared critical to safe railway operations: locomotive engineer, conductor, yard foreman, transfer hostler. Finally, under the REQSR, railway companies are required to notify the Committee of changes to examination formats and evaluations, and to submit to the Committee, on a yearly basis, a comprehensive report on its employee training programs. However, for more than 10 years, TC has not requested railway companies to submit this information. Railway companies still need to provide such information upon request during inspection.

Regulatory scenario

Under the regulatory scenario, the list of positions that are declared critical to safe railway operations would be expanded by adding two new positions: remote control locomotive operator and rail traffic controllers. The existing knowledge-based training and OJT requirements would continue to apply and be incorporated into the proposed Regulations. In addition, familiarization and continuous training would be added to the training requirements, and CRM components would be integrated into each type of training. A person certified in a position declared critical to safe railway operations with a valid certificate would be required to take a non-exercise of duties training if absent for 12 consecutive months.

Moreover, the proposed Regulations would also require railway companies to ensure a person performing the duties associated with the positions critical to safety is paired with a more experienced employee until they have acquired at least two years’ experience.

Railway companies would be required to administer an examination to affected employees in respect of the knowledge-based training as well as an evaluation after the OJT. Certificate holders would need to renew their certificate every three years by meeting the requirements for knowledge training and OJT.

Although these training types would be new regulatory requirements, in practice they are already being provided by railway companies in a form that meets the requirements set out in the proposed Regulations. It is also the case that the two new positions that would be declared critical to safe railway operations are currently already following the same training requirements set for the other critical positions. Examination and evaluation requirements as well as the certification requirements are also the current practice in the industry. Only the CRM training and pairing requirement would have an incremental cost impact on railway companies.

Some skills and behaviours are best assessed in real-world situations where stress and unpredictability are factors. Since simulators would not replicate all the nuances of actual operational conditions, the proposed Regulations would formalize current practices and prohibit their use for evaluation purposes.

Even though TC is not requesting railway companies to notify the Committee of changes to examination formats and evaluations or to submit a comprehensive report on a yearly basis, the proposed Regulations would formalize the current practice by removing these requirements. Information would still be required upon request during inspection.

The table below summarizes the differences between the baseline and regulatory scenarios.

Table 1: Baseline and the regulatory scenario requirements

Proposed requirements	Baseline scenario	Regulatory scenario	Difference between the baseline and the regulatory scenarios	New actions required under the regulatory scenario
Initial training (which includes the three elements below) Knowledge-based training On-the-Job Training (OJT) Familiarization training	Initial training includes the Knowledge-based training and On-the-Job Training (OJT). The Familiarization training component is already part of current railway company training.	The proposed Regulations would formalize Familiarization training to the Initial training requirements.	No difference between the baseline and the regulatory scenarios.	No new action required
Continuing training	Under current practices, railway companies are providing to certificate holders the necessary training (under the form of continuous training) if there is any change to the knowledge-based training elements.	Continuous training would be formalized under the proposed Regulations.	No difference between the baseline and the regulatory scenarios.	No new action required
Integrating Crew Resource Management components into all training	Under current practices, some railway companies cover some CRM principles in their overall training, while others do not cover CRM principles in their overall training.	Railway companies that already cover some CRM principles/practices, would need to revise and update the CRM components to include in their overall training. Railway companies that do not cover CRM principles/practices would need to develop and include CRM components in their overall training.	Railway companies would be required to ensure that all levels of training include CRM training.	Railway companies that already cover some CRM principles/practices would update their current CRM training component to provide all CRM principles and practices. Additional time would be added to existing training. Railway companies that do not cover CRM principles/practices would develop CRM components to be integrated to all training. All CRM principles and practices would add time to existing training.
Non-exercise of duties training	Railway companies are required to ensure that railway employees remain qualified to perform their duties.	If a person with a valid certificate has not performed safety-critical duties in the past 12 months, the railway company would need to renew the employee’s certificates by accessing their knowledge and skills.	This requirement is already part of current railway company practices and would be formalized under the proposed Regulations.	No new action required
Pairing of employees with less than two years of experience	No requirements under the REQSR.	Railway company would require a person performing the duties associated with the positions critical to safety to be paired with a more experienced employee until they have acquired at least two years of experience.	This requirement does not exist in the baseline scenario.	Railway companies would be required to allocate resources to have experienced certificate holders be paired with less experienced employees for the purpose of improving safety.
Training record	Training records are required to be kept under current practices.	Training records would be required to be kept for at least six years.	This requirement does not exist in the baseline scenario. Generally, it is the current practice for railway companies to keep records for a minimum of six years.	Training records would be required to be kept for at least six years.
Examination and evaluation	Railway companies are required to evaluate employees, through proper examination and evaluation	These training requirements would be formalized under the proposed Regulations.	No difference between the baseline and the regulatory scenario.	No new action required
Certificate renewal training	A railway company shall, at intervals of not more than three years, have each employee in an occupational category re-examined on the required subjects.	These requirements would be formalized under the proposed regulations. Certificate expires three years after its date of issuance.	No difference between the baseline and the regulatory scenario.	No new action required
Transfer of certificate (from one railway company to another)	It is the current practice for railway companies to ensure certificates holders have the proper training when transferred.	Railway companies hiring new employees with certificates from other railway companies must ensure these employees undergo any additional training needed to perform their duties safely.	This requirement would be formalized under the proposed Regulations. No difference between the baseline and the regulatory scenario	No new action required

Costs and benefits

Data and methodology

A survey was conducted with railway companies to gather some of the necessary information to develop the cost-benefit analysis for the proposed Regulations.

The questionnaire was sent to all federally regulated railway companies. A total of 22 responses were received from the 30 railway companies and associations who were contacted. The information gathered during this survey included the number of employees expected to be affected by the proposed Regulations, the pairing of employees that have less than two years of experience, and the types of training provided to employees in current practices. The railway companies, in their responses, provided information on the number of their employees occupying positions declared critical to safe railway operations as well as a description of the training currently provided to these employees. Regarding the training provided, current practices showed to be uniform across the industry except for CRM training, which is offered in some form by larger companies, whereas smaller companies currently do not offer any CRM training. Excluding CRM, the responses from railway companies regarding training indicate that their current practices would meet the requirements of the proposed Regulations. Regarding employee pairing, no railway company indicated that they currently had a specific program for pairing new employees (with less than two years of experience) with employees that have more experience. Regarding the time required for updating and developing CRM training, companies’ responses varied greatly. In this case, hypotheses have been formulated based on survey responses and input from subject matter experts to best quantify these requirements.

It is anticipated that the proposed Regulations would reduce rail occurrences, and consequently fatalities, major injuries, and/or damages to the environment and property. Due to lack of data, these benefits are not quantified or monetized; however, a break-even analysis was conducted to determine how much of a reduction in rail occurrences would be needed to offset the costs. The railway occurrences database and investigation reports from the TSB website were used to determine the number of incidents, fatalities, and serious injuries that could be associated^{footnote 2} with the objectives of the proposed Regulations. Details of the break-even analysis are further described in the “Benefits” section below.

A literature review was also conducted to support a qualitative analysis in addition to the breakeven analysis.

Costs

The proposed Regulations would introduce new training requirements as well as integrating CRM components to all types of training. The proposal would also extend the occupational categories that are deemed critical to safe railway operations as well as introducing a requirement for less experienced employees to be paired with more experienced employees until they gain two years of experience. It is expected that the proposed Regulations would impose a total cost of $31.87 million to federally regulated railway companies. In addition, the Government of Canada would have to inform inspectors of the new requirements through an information session. Additional requirements would also add time to operations’ railway inspections. The total cost to the Government of Canada is expected to be $140,401. Overall, the proposed Regulations would impose a total cost of $32.01 million.

Cost to industry

New training requirements

Based on the information provided by railway companies during the survey, it can be assumed that knowledge-based training, OJT, familiarization training, continuous training and non-exercise of duties training are already provided to all employees occupying a position declared critical to safe railway operations in the current practices of railway companies. Therefore, these requirements would only formalize the existing practices within the industry and would not impose additional cost.

Similarly, railway companies confirmed that the two new positions critical to safety that would be included in the proposed Regulations, namely remote control locomotive operators and rail traffic controllers, are currently following the same training requirements as the other positions declared critical to safe operation. It is therefore assumed that all positions affected by the proposed Regulations are currently provided with training by the railway companies that employ them. As a result, the addition of two new positions as positions critical to safety would not have any impact on the training of employees occupying these positions.

CRM components costs

The proposed Regulations would require railway companies to incorporate CRM components into all types of training. It is expected that this would add training time to affected employees and training programs would need to be developed or updated by making sure they cover all the necessary topics and requirements.

Affected railway companies are grouped under two categories: Group 1 (3 railway companies) includes railway companies that currently offer a CRM training and need to update this training to comply with the proposed Regulations. Whereas Group 2 (18 railway companies) includes railway companies that currently do not offer any CRM training.^{footnote 3} Based on the information received during the survey with railway companies, employees of Group 1 companies have incremental CRM training that they would need to complete on an annual basis to meet the requirements of the proposed Regulations. It is assumed, based on the training provided by Group 1 companies that an additional two hours per year to cover all the CRM components would fulfill the requirements of the proposed Regulations. Given Group 2 companies do not currently offer any CRM training to their employees, it is assumed that a total of eight hours per employee would be needed annually to meet the requirements. The time needed includes the time to review the CRM training components already provided by Group 1 railway companies. Table 2 shows the estimated additional time by employees’ position and groups to cover CRM components, in hours.

Table 2: Incremental duration of CRM training by employee position in hours per year

Employee position	Group 1 companies	Group 2 companies
Locomotive engineer	2	8
Conductor	2	8
Transfer hostler	2	8
Yard person	2	8
Remote control locomotive operator	2	8
Rail traffic controller	2	8

Source: Transport Canada

The CRM requirement would apply to positions declared critical to safe railway operations, including contractors and supervisors employed in these positions. Table 3 shows a breakdown of the affected employees by position and railway groups.

Table 3: Number of affected employees by position and railway group ^{table b3 note *}

Employee position	Group 1	Group 2	Totals
Locomotive engineer	5 472	583	6 055
Conductor	8 774	410	9 184
Transfer hostler	51	96	147
Yard person	N/A	21	21
Remote control locomotive operator	N/A	N/A	N/A
Rail traffic controller	727	N/A	727
Totals	15 024	1 110	16 134
Table b3 note(s) Table b3 note * Note the following: Numbers in Table 3 include contractors and supervisors employed in these positions. N/A in the table indicates that companies do not have these job positions or that these positions are included in other job positions categories. Return to table b3 note * referrer

Source: Survey of railway companies and internal Transport Canada data

Based on recent trends, it is expected that there would be a decreasing rate of 0.5% annually in the number of employees over the analytical time frame under the baseline and regulatory scenarios. This decrease in the number of employees is attributed to technological progress and automation.

To estimate the employee training costs, the hourly average employee salary^{footnote 4} was used and adjusted to 2023 Canadian dollars with Statistics Canada’s consumer price index.^{footnote 5} Table 4 shows affected employees’ hourly wages including 25% overhead.

Table 4: Employees’ hourly salaries including 25% overhead

Employee’s position	Hourly wage including overhead
Locomotive engineer	$75.98
Conductor	$59.38
Transfer hostler	$59.38
Yard person	$51.15
Remote control locomotive operator	$59.38
Rail traffic controller	$62.20

The proposed Regulations do not contain specific requirements for the method of course delivery, which could be online, in a classroom, or a combination of both. According to subject matter experts, railway companies are currently using the online or notebook course delivery method and would likely choose to continue using the online method to minimize costs. With online training, there is no need for a physical venue, classroom setup, or travel before accessing the training. Courses are predesigned, saved, and can be accessed by employees multiple times without bearing additional costs. It is assumed that the online implementation of the CRM training modules and their updates are included in the initial development or annual update of CRM training cost. Therefore, railway companies would not carry any extra delivery costs if 100% of the CRM training component would be delivered online. The sensitivity analysis section provides impact scenarios where all the courses are delivered in a classroom or with a combination of online and classroom. There would be a two-year transition period after the publication before the proposed Regulations would come into force. This training would therefore begin in 2027. As a result, it is estimated that the total cost of adding CRM components to the training requirements over the analytical period would be $16.40 million.

CRM training development costs

Railway companies would bear costs associated with CRM training development. To assess the costs of developing the CRM components, the information provided by the companies was used. It is assumed that a team, consisting of four members with different positions and levels, would be responsible for developing the new training. To simplify the assessment, salaries for equivalent positions within the Government of Canada were used as a proxy to calculate the cost of training development. It is assumed based on information provided by rail companies that approximately 10 hours of work would be needed to develop one hour of training content. This estimate also includes any required revisions of currently developed training. Table 5 below shows the equivalent positions of the CRM components development team, the percentage of workload, and the equivalent hourly wage which includes 25% overhead.

Table 5: Affected time and hourly wage of the CRM components development team by position

Training development team position	Share of workload	Hourly salary with overhead
Senior Inspector TI-07	10%	$73.36
Inspector TI-06	40%	$67.24
Senior Learning Specialist EDS-3	10%	$63.81
Learning Specialist EDS-2	40%	$59.77

As explained earlier, prior to the first year of compliance (2027), railway companies would need to develop additional training. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that this effort would take place in 2026. Group 1 railway companies would have to develop an additional 2 hours of CRM component to update their existing training, while Group 2 railway companies would have to develop 8 hours of CRM training component to comply with the proposed Regulations. In addition, for the subsequent years, it is assumed that all railway companies would need 2 hours annually to update the training program, with the same workload share laid out in Table 5. As a result, the total cost of the CRM training development over the analytical period is expected to be $ 0.11 million.

Pairing costs

The proposed Regulations would require railway companies to ensure that employees performing the duties associated with the positions critical to safety are paired with a more experienced employee until they have acquired at least two years of experience. By not prescribing the details around how the pairing for each position must occur, this requirement provides flexibility to railway companies to achieve the desired outcome of having experienced human resources available to less experienced employees for the purpose of improving safety.

When new employees are hired, they are trained for approximately 6 months. This period may be longer or shorter, depending on the employee’s development, knowledge, and competencies. This training period would not factor into an employee’s 2 years of experience as it relates to their need for pairing. For this analysis, the baseline scenario assumes that all in-scope railway companies would not meet the pairing requirements. That being said, conductors are always paired with a locomotive engineer in the train cabin, and all locomotive engineers must have more than 2 years of experience as conductors, which means they would be available to provide the experienced guidance for the conductor. Given this, no incremental costs would be incurred related to the pairing of conductors. For all other critical safety positions, incremental costs would be incurred.

Based on information gathered from railway companies, on average 25% of their operating employees in positions critical to safety have less than 2 years of experience. Also based on survey responses, it is assumed that on average 75% of assignments of employees with less than 2 years’ experience would be impacted by this requirement. The 75% refers to the number of employees in positions declared critical to safe railway operations who are assigned to a task on any working day.^{footnote 6} Based on the estimates of employees currently having less than 2 years of experience, it is assumed that companies have roughly a 12.5% turnover rate annually. This would result in the share of employees requiring pairing to remain constant at 25% across the analytical time frame.

Given the flexibility of the proposed Regulations regarding the means to achieve the pairing requirement, railway companies would be able to comply without establishing a strict regime of direct 1-to-1 pairing. It is assumed for all affected job positions that the availability of an experienced employee of the same job title would be required to be paired with 10 less experienced employees, acknowledging this number may vary higher or lower across companies and/or positions. This guidance could be provided either in-person or in a virtual manner where appropriate. A more experienced employee would spend an average of 1 hour each day fulfilling this role,^{footnote 7} through answering questions and/or providing guidance.

Based on these assumptions and the wage rates laid out in Table 4, the total cost of pairing requirements over the analytical period is estimated at $15.37 million.

Cost to Government

TC would incur costs associated with the development of guidance materials associated with the proposed Regulations for railway companies. However, since this would take place prior to when the Regulations are registered, those development costs are not included in this analysis. Similarly, the cost of updating the inspector training materials developed for regular ongoing training is not included in the analysis as the update would also be completed prior to when the Regulations are registered. It is assumed that the development of guidance material and updating the inspector training materials would cost $22,000.^{footnote 8}

Rail inspectors currently follow comprehensive training programs and are therefore familiar with oversight requirements and enforcement. Information on the proposed Regulations would be provided by the National Enforcement Program to 34 inspectors^{footnote 9} through a 2-hour information session following the expected registration date. It is expected to generate additional one-time cost of $5,238 in 2025.

During routine inspections, it is expected that the proposed requirements could be verified by adding 10 minutes to the average inspection time, as most of the requirements are already part of the standard inspection checks (e.g. rules cards, crew experience) except for the pairing requirement. It is expected that around 1 600 operational railway inspections are performed each year. An additional 10 minutes per inspection would add a total inspection cost of $135,163 over the analytical period^{footnote 10}. If necessary, TC could plan more comprehensive oversight activities to ensure railway companies comply with the proposed Regulations.

As a result, the total cost to Government of Canada over the analytical period is expected to be $140,401.

Benefits

It is anticipated that the proposed Regulations would reduce the likelihood and/or severity of a portion of rail occurrences, some of which could involve fatalities, major injuries, the release of dangerous goods, pollution, and/or damage to property. Alongside reducing the likelihood of specific rail occurrences, the proposed Regulations are also expected to holistically improve safety culture within Canadian railway operations. With enhanced crew safety through robust training and pairing, the likelihood of human error is reduced, and the crew and operator are better prepared to properly execute operational procedures in a safe matter. The proposed Regulations would benefit not only the crew members and passengers by building a safer workplace and increasing transportation safety, but also the Canadian public at large by mitigating the environmental and economic impacts that can occur in the event of an incident (e.g. environmental and property damages, interruptions to emergency services and operations, etc.).

Due to a lack of data, these benefits could not be directly quantified or monetized. However, a breakeven analysis has been conducted^{footnote 11} as an alternative approach to determine how much of a reduction in in-scope railway occurrences would be needed to offset the costs. Even though these benefits are not directly monetized, TC believes that the proposed Regulations are in the public interest as the overall safety benefits are expected to outweigh the monetized costs.

Break-even analysis

In order to conduct the break-even analysis, the reduction of in-scope occurrences required was derived from dividing the total cost of the proposed Regulations by the average avoided cost per in-scope occurrence. The average avoided cost per in-scope occurrence was estimated based on the value of avoided fatalities and major injuries associated with in-scope historical occurrences, as well as other avoided costs including property damage, delay and rerouting, emissions, operating, and emergency responders. The methodology and assumptions used in the break-even analysis are described in further detail in the following paragraphs.

In-scope occurrences

Historical in-scope occurrences, including their associated fatalities and major injuries, are obtained from the TSB’s Rail Transportation Occurrence Data. The occurrences dataset was filtered to exclude railroad crossing accidents as it is difficult to link these accidents to employees’ training or experience. Data from 2021 to 2023 were also excluded as the investigations of the majority of occurrences of those years are not completed. Between 2014 and 2020, there were approximately 8 088 railway occurrences, with 18 fatalities and 71 major injuries. Table 6 shows the annual occurrences reported between 2014 and 2020.

Table 6: Annual occurrences, 2014 to 2020

Year	Total occurrences	Fatalities	Major injuries
2014	1 247	2	1
2015	1 217	1	7
2016	1 009	0	10
2017	1 108	3	18
2018	1 215	4	12
2019	1 264	6	16
2020	1 028	2	7
Total	8 088	18	71

Source: TSB’s Rail Transportation Occurrence Data

Assuming that occurrences with a publicly available investigation report on the TSB website constitute a representative sample of all occurrences, it was determined that 11.11%^{footnote 12} of occurrences were directly linked to an employee’s or crew member’s lack of training or experience and were associated with 40% of the fatalities and 10% of the major injuries.^{footnote 13} Therefore, of these 8 088 railway occurrences, 899 occurrences with 7.2 fatalities and 7.1 major injuries could have been caused by an employee’s or a crew member’s lack of training or experience.

Using the average number of occurrences between 2014 and 2020, and given there is no observable historical trend in occurrences, it is projected that there would be 128 in-scope occurrences each year during the analytical time frame (i.e. 2025 to 2036).

Average avoided cost per in-scope occurrence

It is estimated that, on average, an occurrence would involve 0.008 fatalities and 0.007 major injuries (7.2 fatalities and 7.1 major injuries over 899 occurrences). Using the value of a statistical life (VSL) required by TBS (i.e. $9.16 million in 2023 Canadian dollars), and the valuation of a major injury being 13.42% of the VSL,^{footnote 14} the average avoided human consequence cost per in-scope occurrence is estimated by the average avoided fatalities and major injuries. As a result, the average value of avoided human consequences per in-scope occurrence is estimated to be $83,099. Using data from a study conducted in the state of North Carolina in the United States (PDF)^{footnote 15} on the cost of railway incidents, in 2020, the costs of rail incidents related to property damage, delay and rerouting, emissions, operating, and emergency responders were estimated to be $50,945.^{footnote 16} When combined with the avoided human consequences, the total avoided cost per occurrence is estimated at $134,044. This is broken down in Table 7.

Table 7: Avoided costs per in-scope occurrence

Type of avoided cost	Value	% of total avoided costs
Avoided fatalities	$73,387	54.75%
Avoided major injuries	$9,712	7.25%
Avoided property damage costs	$37,461	27.95%
Avoided delay and rerouting costs	$11,050	8.24%
Avoided emissions costs	$1,048	0.78%
Avoided operating costs	$598	0.45%
Avoided emergency responder costs	$788	0.59%
Total avoided cost per occurrence	$134,044	100%

Break-even reduction of in-scope occurrences

Given that the estimated total cost of the proposed Regulations would be $32.01 million, and that the average avoided cost per in-scope occurrence would be $134,044, it was determined that a reduction of 28.34% of in-scope occurrences, which amounts to an average reduction of approximately 36 in-scope occurrences per year from 2027 to 2036, would represent a break-even point, offsetting the estimated total costs of the proposed Regulations.

Qualitative benefits

Similar to the North Carolina Department of Transportation study, which supports the breakeven analysis, another study conducted by the US Department of Transportation on Rail Crew Resource Management^{footnote 17} also demonstrates that CRM training can be expected to have net positive benefits at both the industry and individual railroad level by reducing the overall costs associated with human factors-related accidents. This study uses utility analysis to quantify the anticipated benefits to the railroad industry if CRM training were to be applied. The report focuses on the utility of CRM in the railroad industry, specifically assessing its potential to reduce accident costs. It emphasizes that CRM can prevent accidents related to mechanical failure by enhancing coordination and teamwork. Even though this study emphasizes the benefits on accident-related cost savings, the study also found additional qualitative benefits to CRM training such as increased workplace safety, improved teamwork, and crew coordination efficiency, and avoided legal and post-accident hazardous material cleanup costs. The findings recommend the broader implementation of CRM to improve compliance, efficiency, and overall productivity, resulting in financial savings and additional safety benefits.

Certification

Railway companies would continue issuing certificates to employees occupying positions declared critical to safe railway operations. However, the proposed Regulations would not prescribe the format of the certification. It is expected that railway companies would opt for the least expensive format, potentially resulting in cost savings.

Cost-benefit statement

• Number of years: 12 (2025 to 2036)
• Price year: 2023
• Present value base year: 2025
• Discount rate: 7%

Table 8: Monetized costs (Present value)

Impacted stakeholders	Costs description	Base year (2025)	Year 2026	Coming-into-force year (2027)	Final year (2036)	Total present value	Annualized value
Railway companies	CRM Costs	$0	$0	$2,225,322	$1,157,035	$16,397,927	$2,064,532
	Training development cost	$0	$90,447	$2,367	$1,287	$108,235	$13,627
	Pairing cost	$0	$0	$2,085,492	$1,084,332	$15,367,548	$1,934,805
Government of Canada	Information session to inspectors	$5,238	$0	$0	$0	$5,238	$659
	Additional inspection time	$0	$0	$17,985	$9,783	$135,163	$17,017
All stakeholders	Total costs table b8 note a	$5,238	$90,447	$4,331,166	$2,252,437	$32,014,111	$4,030,640
Table b8 note(s) Table b8 note a Figures may not add up to totals due to rounding. Return to table b8 note a referrer

Table 9: Occurrence reduction at break-even point

Projected number of in-scope occurrences per year	Average estimated cost per occurrence	Occurrence reduction needed per year to cover the cost (%)	Occurrence reduction needed per year to cover the cost
128	$134,044	28.34%	36

Qualitative benefits

• The proposed Regulation would provide a more comprehensive and robust training and qualification regime enhancing the safety of railway employees and mitigating negative impacts on the economy, leading to both financial savings and additional safety benefits.
• The proposed Regulations would not prescribe the format of the certification. This would allow railway companies to provide alternative certificate formats such as electronic certificates to be issued and stored on devices compared to the current wallet-sized card requirement. It is expected that railway companies would opt for the least expensive format, potentially resulting in cost savings.

Distributional analysis

The proposed Regulations would affect 21 railway companies operating on federally regulated track in Canada. As explained earlier, railway companies have been categorized into two groups: those that offer CRM training in their current practices (Group 1) and those that do not offer CRM training (Group 2). Group 1 companies would incur 83% of the total cost and 17% would be incurred by Group 2 companies. Table 10.1 below shows the distribution of the total cost between the two groups of railway companies. The higher cost borne by Group 1 railway companies is explained by the fact that 93% of the affected employees belong to Group 1 railway companies, compared to 7% for Group 2 railway companies.

Table 10.1: Total cost by railway group

Railway companies’ group	Number of companies	Cost	Percentage of total cost
Group 1	3	$26,403,378	83%
Group 2	18	$5,470,333	17%
Total	21	$31,873,711	100%

Table 10.2 shows the distribution of costs between public and private railway companies. It is expected that 5% of the costs would be borne by publicly owned railway companies while 95% would be borne by private railway companies. Among the private companies, the two largest railway companies in-scope would bear the majority of the costs, accounting for 83% of the total costs.

Table 10.2: Total cost by publicly and privately owned railway company

Ownership type	Number of companies	Costs	Percentage
Public	2	$1,701,576	5%
Private	19	$30,172,135	95%
Total	21	$31,873,711	100%

Sensitivity analysis

As previously described, a number of assumptions have been made to estimate the costs of the proposed Regulations. To address the effect of uncertainty and variability on these assumptions, a sensitivity analysis was conducted, where variables are assigned different values, and outcomes are re-evaluated. A single-variable sensitivity analysis was performed on the following variables: the estimated industry cost, the estimated CRM training delivery cost, the analytical time frame and discount rates.

Estimated industry cost

Since some data used in the analysis are obtained through a survey of railway companies, a sensitivity analysis is presented assuming that the results of the central analysis (industry cost — $31,873,711) are either overestimated by 25% or underestimated by 25%.

Estimated CRM training delivery cost

For the CRM training course delivery, railway companies would need to choose between three methods: online training, classroom training, or a combination of both. According to subject matter experts, railway companies are currently using the online or notebook course delivery method and would likely choose to continue using the online training method to minimize costs. Therefore, this method was assumed in the central analysis. A sensitivity analysis presents the results if a classroom or hybrid delivery method were chosen by railway companies.

For the classroom training delivery, it is assumed that railway companies would deliver the CRM training on their premises. It is also assumed that all necessary training handouts would be distributed electronically to employees and would be part of the instructor’s preparation. Therefore, no costs related to training venues, classroom setup, logistics, or travel would be incurred by the railway companies. The only incremental cost would be the instructors’ time for delivering the course and their preparation time. Instructors are assumed to be experienced employees in the same position, as shown in Table 4. Classroom instruction is assumed to accommodate 30 employees, with 1 hour allocated for the instructor to prepare the training for each session.

For hybrid training (online and classroom), it is assumed that half of all CRM training would be delivered online and the other half in the classroom. For simplicity in calculations, it is assumed that the cost of training in a hybrid method would be equal to half the cost of classroom training.

Analytical time frame

A 12-year period analytical time frame was used for the central analysis to fully represent the expected cost over a 10-year time frame, whereas the sensitivity analysis presents the results should a 17-year or 22-year period time frame have been used.

Discount rate

The central analysis used a 7% discount rate as recommended by the Policy on Cost-Benefit Analysis. The sensitivity analysis presents the results should a 3% discount rate have been used, as well as if there were no discounting.

Table 11.1: Sensitivity analysis results — Estimated industry cost

Parameter	Total cost (present value in million)	Break-even annual occurrence	Break-even annual occurrence (%)
Central industry cost assumptions	$32,014,111	36	28.34%
25% higher industry cost	$39,982,538	45	35.40%
25% lower industry cost	$24,045,683	27	21.29%

Table 11.2: Sensitivity analysis results — Estimated CRM training delivery cost

Parameter	Total cost (present value)	Break-even annual occurrence	Break-even annual occurrence (%)
Online delivery table c4 note *	$32,014,111	36	28.34%
Classroom delivery	$32,785,950	37	29.02%
Hybrid delivery	$32,400,031	37	28.68%
Table c4 note(s) Table c4 note * Central scenario used in main analysis Return to table c4 note * referrer

Table 11.3: Sensitivity analysis results — Analytical time frame

Parameter	Total cost (present value)	Break-even annual occurrence	Break-even annual occurrence (%)
12-year period table c5 note *	$32,014,111	36	28.34%
17-year period	$41,118,743	36	28.07%
22-year period	$47,450,348	36	27.85%
Table c5 note(s) Table c5 note * Central scenario used in main analysis Return to table c5 note * referrer

Table 11.4: Sensitivity analysis results — Discount rates

Parameter	Total cost (present value)	Break-even annual occurrence	Break-even annual occurrence (%)
Undiscounted	$48,593,738	36	28.24%
3%	$40,307,622	36	28.28%
7% table c6 note *	$32,014,111	36	28.34%
Table c6 note(s) Table c6 note * Central scenario used in main analysis Return to table c6 note * referrer

Small business lens

Analysis under the small business lens concluded that the proposed Regulations would impact small businesses. It has been identified that 13 of the impacted railway companies are estimated be small businesses.^{footnote 18} Since all of them are categorized as Group 2 railway companies, this implies that 72% of the overall costs incurred by Group 2 category companies would be borne by small businesses. Consequently, the anticipated cost of the proposed Regulations on small businesses is estimated to be $3.95 million over the 12-year analytical period.

For the health and safety of rail employees, it is important to have consistent training requirements on all impacted businesses. While no specific flexibilities have been developed for small businesses, some elements of the proposed Regulations are expected to help mitigate impacts for small businesses. First, the proposed Regulations would provide a two-year transition period, which would give railway companies two full years to come into compliance with new requirements. In addition, the proposed Regulations were designed to be outcome-based, which would provide small businesses (and all impacted businesses) flexibility to determine how they would develop and implement their training programs.

Small business lens summary

• Number of small businesses impacted: 13
• Number of years: 12 (2025 to 2036)
• Price year: 2023
• Present value base year: 2025
• Discount rate: 7%

Table 12: Compliance costs (present value)

Activity	Annualized value	Present value
CRM Costs	$349,582	$2,776,617
Training development cost	$9,282	$73,721
Supervision cost	$138,550	$1,100,457
Total cost table c7 note *	$497,413	$3,950,796
Cost per small business	$38,263	$303,907
Table c7 note(s) Table c7 note * Totals may not add due to rounding. Return to table c7 note * referrer

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule does not apply as the proposed Regulations would not result in an incremental change in the administrative burden on business.

The proposal is repealing the REQSR and replacing them with the proposed Regulations which would result in no net increase or decrease in regulatory titles.

The proposed Regulations would prescribe the retention time for training records; these records would need to be kept for a minimum of six years. However, since a record-keeping requirement already exists under current regulations, the retention time frame is not expected to result in an increase in administrative costs to business since the associated administrative tasks (filing and retrieval) would not be impacted; the cost of infrastructure for document storage is not considered an administrative burden as defined in the Red Tape Reduction Act.

As mentioned in the baseline and regulatory scenario sections, the proposed Regulations would remove the requirements for railway companies to notify the Committee of changes to examination formats and evaluations, and to submit to the Committee, on a yearly basis, a comprehensive report on its employee training programs. Since these actions have not been requested by TC for more than 10 years, it is not expected to result in a decrease in administrative costs to business.

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

Although the proposed Regulations are not related to any specific international agreements/obligations, nor any formal regulatory cooperation initiatives, they would align with the U.S. approach to regulating the training and qualification of railway workers. More specifically, in the United States, minimum training and qualification standards apply to employees in positions declared critical to safe railway operation, such as dispatchers (rail traffic controllers). However, in the United States, the positions are not based on job title but based on performance of safety-related tasks set by the railway company, which is different from Canada. Additionally, CRM training is also used in the United States.

The proposed Regulations would not directly apply to provincial railway employees, but provinces can and may incorporate the proposed Regulations’ content within their respective regulatory regimes. This was done by British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick with the REQSR. Quebec has a more distinct regulatory regime, but this regime still features requirements that mirror those within the proposed Regulations (e.g. regulatory requirements respecting the training and qualification of railway employees refer to the duties of the position rather than the occupational category).

Effects on the environment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment, and the TC Policy Statement on Strategic Environment Assessment (2013), the strategic environmental assessment process was followed for this proposal and a Sustainable Transportation Assessment was completed. The assessment considered potential effects to the environmental goals and targets of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy. No important environmental effects are anticipated as a result of this proposal. However, as the proposed Regulations are expected to reduce accidents, these would also reduce environmental damage that these accidents would have caused.

Gender-based analysis plus

Overall, the proposed Regulations would benefit all Canadians by improving the safety of railway operations. The proposed Regulations are expected to help reduce the number of accidents and incidents that can result in injuries or fatalities, environmental damage, and disruptions to communities and businesses that depend on the rail transportation sector.

Similar to other transportation industries, such as the trucking industry, the rail industry workforce is predominantly male. Based on data from 2022 compiled and published by the Railway Association of Canada (RAC), 85% of employees identified as male and 15% identified as female. Approximately 13.8% of railway workers identified as a visible minority and approximately 4.6% identified as Indigenous peoples. Between 2020 and 2022, there was an increase in representation for women (up 3.2%), visible minorities (up 2.9%) and Indigenous peoples (up 0.7%).

However, based on the stakeholder consultations and a review of existing regulations, there is no indication that training requirements have affected the participation of women, or other under-represented groups, in the rail industry.

The proposed Regulations, which are designed to strengthen and modernize training requirements, are not expected to create or reinforce any barriers to the participation of women in the rail industry. However, TC notes that the non-exercise of duties requirement in the proposed Regulations may have a differential impact on female employees who seek extended leave in relation to a pregnancy (i.e. maternity leave) as these employees may — depending on the length of the absence — need to take the recertification training before returning to their duties. Despite the potential differential impact that the new non-exercise of duties requirement may have on some female employees, TC has concluded, in light of the TSB’s findings, that the knowledge and skills required for positions critical to safety are perishable and that, therefore, the requirement is necessary to confirm a consistent level of training and experience among employees in these positions. No mitigation measures or flexibilities were considered because the new requirement is designed to help ensure the safety of railway operators, their crews, and the general public. Furthermore, TC does not anticipate that this requirement would negatively impact the participation of women in the rail industry as, irrespective of gender, railway employees recognize the importance of maintaining their skills for the safety and efficiency of rail operations.

TC’s analysis did not identify any other potential differential impacts based on identity factors such as race, ethnicity, sexuality, age, or religion.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Implementation

The proposed Regulations would come into force two years after publication in the Canada Gazette, Part II, for all railway companies and local railway companies. A transition period of two years would provide railway companies with enough time to review and revise or develop their training programs to bring them into compliance with the proposed Regulations. Guidance material would be developed and shared with industry on the date that the proposed Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, to assist with the implementation process. Inspectors would also be able to answer questions related to the proposed Regulations as they conduct their planned inspections.

Compliance and enforcement

Once the proposed Regulations come into force, in accordance with the Rail Safety Oversight Policy and the Departmental Enforcement Standards, TC typically takes a graduated enforcement approach to bring those who contravene the proposed Regulations back into compliance. In the event of non-compliance with the proposed Regulations, TC could consider the company’s behaviour and willingness to comply before taking appropriate enforcement action, which could range from a letter of warning to an administrative monetary penalty of up to $250,000 based on non-compliance with section 17.2 of the RSA, or prosecution for the most serious offences.

Costs to TC associated with the implementation, administration and enforcement of the proposed Regulations would manage within existing resources. Training materials for Transport Canada inspectors would be updated before the proposed Regulations come into force.

Contact

Bobby Chauhan
Acting Director
Regulatory Affairs
Rail Safety and Security
Transport Canada
Email:
TC.RailSafetyRegAffairs-AffairesRegSecuriteferroviaire.TC@tc.gc.ca

PROPOSED REGULATORY TEXT

Notice is given that the Governor in Council proposes to make the annexed Railway Personnel Training and Qualifications Regulations under subsections 18(1)^{footnote a} and 37(1)^{footnote b} of the Railway Safety Act ^{footnote c}.

Interested persons may make representations concerning the proposed Regulations within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. They are strongly encouraged to use the online commenting feature that is available on the Canada Gazette website but if they use email, mail or any other means, the representations should cite the Canada Gazette, Part I, and the date of publication of this notice, and be sent to Bobby Chauhan, Acting Director, Regulatory Affairs, Rail Safety, Department of Transport, 427 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0N5 (email: bobby.chauhan@tc.gc.ca).

Ottawa, December 5, 2024

Wendy Nixon
Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council

Railway Personnel Training and Qualifications Regulations

General

Application

1 These Regulations apply to railway companies.

Positions critical to safe railway operations

2 (1) For the purposes of these Regulations, all of the following positions are declared to be critical to safe railway operations:

• (a) locomotive engineer;
• (b) conductor;
• (c) transfer hostler;
• (d) yard person;
• (e) remote control locomotive operator;
• (f) rail traffic controller.

Requirement to hold certificate

(2) Subject to subsection (3), a railway company must ensure that a person who carries out the duties of a position referred to in subsection (1) holds a certificate issued under these Regulations for that position.

Less than two years’ experience

(3) A railway company must ensure that a person who has carried out the duties of a position referred to in subsection (1) for less than a total of two years is paired with a person who is a certificate holder and who has carried out the relevant duties for at least two consecutive years within the last five years.

Requirement to possess certificate

(4) A certificate holder must have their certificate in their possession while they carry out their duties.

Requirement to produce certificate

(5) A certificate holder must produce the certificate at the request of any person who is designated to enforce the Railway Safety Act.

Issuance of certificate

3 (1) A railway company must ensure that, before issuing a certificate to a person for a position referred to in subsection 2(1),

• (a) the person has completed the knowledge-based training referred to in subsection 11(2);
• (b) the person has completed the on-the-job training referred to in subsection 11(3) and the familiarization training referred to in subsection 11(4); and
• (c) the person has obtained a mark of at least 80% on the examination referred to in section 15 and the evaluation referred to in section 16.

Expiry of certificate

(2) The certificate expires on the third anniversary of the day on which it is issued.

Previous certificates

(3) A certificate issued under the Railway Employee Qualification Standards Regulations is deemed to have been issued under these Regulations and remains valid until the third anniversary of the day on which it is issued.

Transfer of certificate

4 (1) A railway company must ensure that the holder of a certificate that is for a position referred to in subsection 2(1) and that is issued by another railway company is able to carry out their new duties safely.

Validity

(2) If the railway company is satisfied that the certificate holder is able to carry out their new duties safely, the certificate remains valid until its expiry date.

Renewal of certificate

5 (1) A railway company may renew the certificate of a holder that is for a position referred to in subsection 2(1) if

• (a) the certificate has not expired;
• (b) the certificate holder has completed the renewal training referred to in section 14; and
• (c) the certificate holder has obtained a mark of at least 80% on the examination referred to in section 15 and the evaluation referred to in section 16.

Expiry of certificate

(2) The renewed certificate expires on the third anniversary of the day on which it is renewed.

Non-exercise of duties

6 If a person has not carried out the duties of a position referred to in subsection 2(1) for which they hold a certificate for at least 12 months, that person cannot resume those duties unless the railway company renews that person’s certificate in accordance with section 5.

Accountable executive

7 (1) A railway company must designate an accountable executive who is responsible for ensuring compliance with these Regulations.

Notice to Minister

(2) The railway company must provide the Minister with the name of the accountable executive as soon as feasible after the executive has been designated.

Training

General

Training program

8 A railway company must establish and implement a training program designed to ensure the safe exercise of duties with respect to the positions listed in subsection 2(1) that meets the requirements of sections 11 to 13 and that includes the following elements:

• (a) crew resource management, including threat and error management, interpersonal communication, situational awareness, leadership, teamwork, problem-solving and decision-making; and
• (b) abnormal and emergency situations.

Training requirement

9 A railway company must ensure that a person who holds a position referred to in subsection 2(1) receives training in accordance with these Regulations.

Instructors — knowledge-based training

10 (1) A railway company must ensure that, before an instructor provides the knowledge-based training referred to in subsection 11(2), the instructor

• (a) has completed, within the previous five years, the training required by these Regulations to carry out the duties for which they provide the training;
• (b) has obtained a mark of at least 90% on their latest examination referred to in subsection 15(1); and
• (c) has at least two years’ experience within the previous five years in carrying out the duties for which they provide training.

Instructors — on-the-job training

(2) A railway company must ensure that an instructor who provides the on-the-job training referred to in subsection 11(3)

• (a) holds a certificate for the position for which they provide the training;
• (b) has obtained a mark of at least 90% on their latest evaluation referred to in subsection 16(1);
• (c) has carried out the duties for which they provide training for at least three consecutive months within the previous six months in the area where the training is provided; and
• (d) has at least two years’ experience within the previous five years in carrying out the duties for which they provide training.

Instructors — familiarization training

(3) A railway company must ensure that, before an instructor provides the familiarization training referred to in subsection 11(4), the instructor meets the conditions set out in subsection (2).

Initial Training

Certificate

11 (1) A person seeking to obtain a certificate to carry out the duties of a position referred to in subsection 2(1) must take the knowledge-based training, on-the-job training and familiarization training described in subsections (2) to (4).

Knowledge-based training

(2) The knowledge-based training must relate to the subjects that the person needs to know to carry out their duties safely, including all of the following elements:

• (a) the requirements of the instruments referred to in subsection 10(1) of the Railway Safety Management System Regulations, 2015;
• (b) any federal legislation that may affect railway safety;
• (c) any of the railway company’s procedures, standards, instructions, bulletins or other internal documents that may affect railway safety.

On-the-job training

(3) The on-the-job training must

• (a) be sufficient to ensure that the person has the required knowledge and skills to carry out their duties safely; and
• (b) include a hands-on component that allows the person to learn the duties of their position while completing job tasks measured against a defined level of performance.

Familiarization training

(4) The familiarization training must

• (a) include all of the following elements in respect of the area where the person is to carry out their duties:
  • (i) the topographic features,
  • (ii) the physical characteristics of the railway work, including any grade crossings, grades and curves in a line of railway,
  • (iii) the handling of railway equipment,
  • (iv) the signals,
  • (v) the application of a railway company’s operating rules and special instructions; and
• (b) include at least one trip carried out by the person in their designated area, using the railway equipment to be operated.

Continuing Training

Knowledge-based training

12 A railway company must ensure that continuing training is provided to a certificate holder as soon as feasible if there is a change to any of the elements of the knowledge-based training referred to in subsection 11(2).

Training Related to Area

Familiarization training

13 A railway company must ensure that the familiarization training referred to in subsection 11(4) is provided to a certificate holder who has not carried out their duties within the previous 12 months in the area to which they are assigned. The training must be provided before the certificate holder carries out their duties in that area.

Certificate Renewal Training

Training

14 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the railway company must ensure that knowledge-based training and on-the-job training that meet the requirements of subsections 11(2) and (3) are provided to a certificate holder before the renewal of their certificate.

Exception

(2) A person referred to in section 6 is not required to take the knowledge-based training.

Examinations and Evaluations

Knowledge-based examination

15 (1) A railway company must ensure that an examination is administered as part of the knowledge-based training referred to in subsection 11(2) and section 14 to determine whether the person has the knowledge required to carry out their duties safely.

Correction

(2) The railway company must ensure that an examiner

• (a) corrects the examination and gives a mark;
• (b) gives a mark of 80% or higher only if they are satisfied that the person has demonstrated that they have sufficient knowledge to carry out their duties safely; and
• (c) completes, signs and provides the railway company with a document indicating the mark given.

Qualifications of examiner

(3) A railway company must ensure that, before an examiner carries out their duties, the examiner

• (a) has completed, within the previous five years, the training required by these Regulations to carry out the duties assessed in the exam that they correct;
• (b) has obtained a mark of at least 90% on their latest knowledge-based examination referred to in subsection (1); and
• (c) has at least two years’ experience within the previous five years in carrying out the duties assessed in the exam that they correct.

On-the-job evaluation

16 (1) A railway company must ensure that an evaluator conducts an evaluation as part of the on-the-job training referred to in subsection 11(3) and section 14 to determine whether the person has the required knowledge and skills to carry out their duties safely.

Evaluation

(2) The railway company must ensure that the evaluator

• (a) evaluates the person’s knowledge and skills and gives a mark;
• (b) gives a mark of 80% or higher only if they are satisfied that the person has demonstrated that they have the required knowledge and skills to carry out their duties safely; and
• (c) completes, signs and provides the railway company with a document indicating the mark given.

Qualifications of evaluator

(3) A railway company must ensure that, before an evaluator carries out their duties, the evaluator

• (a) holds a certificate for the position for which they are conducting a knowledge and skills evaluation;
• (b) has obtained a mark of at least 90% on their latest evaluation referred to in subsection (1);
• (c) has carried out the duties of the relevant position for at least three consecutive months within the previous six months in the area where the evaluation is carried out;
• (d) has at least two years’ experience within the previous five years in carrying out the duties of the relevant position; and
• (e) did not provide on-the-job training to the person they evaluate.

Exception

17 Despite subsection 16(1), a certificate holder who takes the renewal training referred to in section 14 is not required to undergo a knowledge-based examination or an on-the-job training evaluation if they successfully complete, no more than six months before the certificate renewal date, a competency test to ensure that the certificate holder has the required knowledge and skills to carry out their duties safely.

Simulator prohibited

18 A railway company must not use a simulator for the purposes of an evaluation.

Records

Training record

19 (1) A railway company must create a training record for each person who takes the training and undergoes the examinations and evaluations required under these Regulations and make the record available to the Minister on reasonable notice given by the Minister.

Record keeping

(2) The railway company must keep the records for at least six years after the day on which they are created.

Consultations

Bargaining agents

20 When a railway company establishes or changes the training program referred to in section 8, it must consult with the bargaining agents representing the employees who are affected by the program or, if there is no bargaining agent, with

• (a) the employees who are affected; or
• (b) a representative selected by the employees.

Coming into Force

Second anniversary of publication

21 These Regulations come into force on the second anniversary of the day on which they are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II.

Terms of use and Privacy notice

Terms of use

It is your responsibility to ensure that the comments you provide do not:

• contain personal information
• contain protected or classified information of the Government of Canada
• express or incite discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or against any other group protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
• contain hateful, defamatory, or obscene language
• contain threatening, violent, intimidating or harassing language
• contain language contrary to any federal, provincial or territorial laws of Canada
• constitute impersonation, advertising or spam
• encourage or incite any criminal activity
• contain external links
• contain a language other than English or French
• otherwise violate this notice

The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to review and remove personal information, hate speech, or other information deemed inappropriate for public posting as listed above.

Confidential Business Information should only be posted in the specific Confidential Business Information text box. In general, Confidential Business Information includes information that (i) is not publicly available, (ii) is treated in a confidential manner by the person to whose business the information relates, and (iii) has actual or potential economic value to the person or their competitors because it is not publicly available and whose disclosure would result in financial loss to the person or a material gain to their competitors. Comments that you provide in the Confidential Business Information section that satisfy this description will not be made publicly available. The federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change retains the right to post the comment publicly if it is not deemed to be Confidential Business Information.

Your comments will be posted on the Canada Gazette website for public review. However, you have the right to submit your comments anonymously. If you choose to remain anonymous, your comments will be made public and attributed to an anonymous individual. No other information about you will be made publicly available.

Comments will remain posted on the Canada Gazette website for at least 10 years.

Please note that communication by email is not secure, if the attachment you wish to send contains sensitive information, please contact the departmental email to discuss ways in which you can transmit sensitive information.

Privacy notice

The information you provide is collected under the authority of the Financial Administration Act, the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement Implementation Act,and applicable regulators’ enabling statutes for the purpose of collecting comments related to the proposed regulatory changes. Your comments and documents are collected for the purpose of increasing transparency in the regulatory process and making Government more accessible to Canadians.

Personal information submitted is collected, used, disclosed, retained, and protected from unauthorized persons and/or agencies pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act and the Privacy Regulations. Individual names that are submitted will not be posted online but will be kept for contact if needed. The names of organizations that submit comments will be posted online.

Submitted information, including personal information, will be accessible to Public Services and Procurement Canada, who is responsible for the Canada Gazette webpage, and the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right of access to and correction of your personal information. To seek access or correction of your personal information, contact the Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) Office of the federal institution managing the proposed regulatory change.

You have the right to file a complaint to the Privacy Commission of Canada regarding any federal institution’s handling of your personal information.

The personal information provided is included in Personal Information Bank PSU 938 Outreach Activities. Individuals requesting access to their personal information under the Privacy Act should submit their request to the appropriate regulator with sufficient information for that federal institution to retrieve their personal information. For individuals who choose to submit comments anonymously, requests for their information may not be reasonably retrievable by the government institution.