"Call it an artifact of history but both Canadian Pacific and Canadian National run their own police forces, with the same legal standing as the RCMP, the Ontario Provincial Police or a local police force and with the same responsibilities to uphold the law. It’s part of federal law."

Imagine if a fatal accident took place at an oil refinery and the police investigation into the causes of the accident was led by the company’s own employees. Or what if a mining company’s personnel was put in charge of investigating a mine collapse that led to the death of several miners?

Sounds ridiculous but that’s exactly what happens with Canada’s two major railways. Call it an artifact of history but both Canadian Pacific and Canadian National run their own police forces, with the same legal standing as the RCMP, the Ontario Provincial Police or a local police force and with the same responsibilities to uphold the law. It’s part of federal law.

Historically, it made some sense for the railways to have their own police. The railways own vast amounts of land and their tracks take them through thousands of kilometres of the Canadian wilderness where policing is rare or non-existent. To have railway police catch trespassers or fine motorists who cross illegally over level crossings doesn’t bother me.

But what in the world are railway police officers doing investigating fatal accidents where corporate negligence by the very company that employs them may be at issue?

That’s the main takeaway from the shocking report prepared by CBC’s Fifth Estate last week on the horrific accident that took the lives of three CPR crewmen in February 2019 when the brakes failed on a train that had been parked in frigid weather at the entrance to a tunnel in the mountains near Field, B.C.

The massive grain train began moving on its own and sped out of the control through a spiral tunnel before leaving the tracks, leaving a trail of destruction. The crewmen, who feared operating in the sub-zero temperatures, didn’t have a chance.

The Transportation Safety Board, a federal agency, is still looking into the causes of the crash, including possible safety shortcomings and just announced that the investigation is entering its report stage, though no date was given for its publication. But even when the TSB report comes out, we’ll get an incomplete picture because the board doesn’t “assign fault or determine civil or criminal liability.” That’s the role of the police.

READ MORE: Canadian Pacific aims to become transcontinental once again

At the same time, a parallel police investigation was launched into the accident. Guess who was in charge? The CP Police Force.

The RCMP was there too, but as second fiddle, according to an RCMP spokesman. “My understanding is that CP had jurisdiction and we were there in an assist capacity,” RCMP spokeswoman Dawn Roberts told me. She called CP “the lead agency” in the investigation. As for CP, it declined to answer a series of questions about the role of its police force in the investigation.

Mark Tataryn, one of three CP Police officers assigned to the investigation, told Fifth Estate how his superiors stopped him from obtaining key witness accounts as part of what he called a “coverup.” According to Tataryn, who has since left CP and joined the RCMP, he was instructed to keep the inquiry focused on the crew rather than on potential negligence by company managers.

“I believe that they were looking out for the better interests of the corporation,” Tataryn told the CBC. “I originally swore an oath to uphold the law and protect the public and not support the corporate interests of CP.” In the end, CP Police say they conducted a thorough investigation and no charges were laid.

As often happens with whistleblowers, CP has hit back at Tataryn calling him a “disgruntled employee” who had become subject of a misconduct investigation, with allegations of altered reports, investigative files and storage of firearms.

The conflict of interest of having CP employees investigate their own company is self-evident. It’s clear even from CP’s own website that the company sees its police force as promoting corporate interests. It states that one of the roles of the CP Police is “supporting service reliability by reducing train delays.”

Reducing train delays and speeding up service is at the core of CP’s drive for profitability. It may be great for shareholder value but it has nothing to do with policing. In fact, it may well be that pressure to run trains in any weather conditions and reduce delays to improve “service reliability” was a contributing factor to the Field crash in the first place.

The RCMP, which assisted in the initial investigation, now says it is reviewing the file to determine next steps. The union representing the three dead crewmen has called for an independent RCMP investigation into the accident.

The TSB has decided to go after its own whistleblower in the case, Don Crawford, who was demoted as lead investigator in the crash after he stated that “there is enough to suspect that there’s negligence here and it needs to be investigated by the proper authority.” The TSB called Crawford’s comment “inappropriate.” So much for the independence of the TSB.

Canada’s railways have become stock market darlings with soaring profits but at what cost? Derailments continue to happen with regularity, often with explosive results, and the railways seem incapable or unwilling to do anything about it, worried that their beloved operating ratios will be impacted.

Last week’s decision by Transport Minister Marc Garneau to impose speed limits on all trains carrying dangerous goods following the second derailment in Saskatchewan in a week is a start. A thorough investigation of the Field accident must be instituted, led by the RCMP. And why not a full-blown public inquiry into rail safety?

In the meantime, Parliament needs to haul the railway police into the 21st Century. Let them write tickets and keep teenagers off the tracks. But leave real policing to a police force that answers to the public interest, not to Bay Street.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.