Evidence of meeting #46 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was track.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Luc Bourdon  Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
Phil Benson  Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
William Brehl  President, Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, Maintenance of Way Employees Division, Teamsters Canada
Rob Smith  National Legislative Director, Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, Locomotive Engineers, Teamsters Canada

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 46.

Before I go into the orders of the day, I just want to bring the committee up to speed about next Tuesday. We have secured the 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. timeframe. You will be getting a notice, if you haven't already received it. We're waiting for a response from the minister on our request to appear. In the meantime, we have confirmed that we will proceed with the aviation safety and security aspect of our discussions. CATSA and CUPE have confirmed their attendance for that timeframe. You'll get a notice in the mail. We will proceed with normal business again at 3:30 that afternoon.

Also, just for the advice of the committee, joining us today we have a group from the Carleton University School of Journalism and Communication. They're sitting at the back.

We welcome you, and hopefully you'll enjoy your day.

With that, we will move to the orders of the day pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, December 8, 2010, Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.

When we left the last meeting we had department officials and the minister. The department officials have been invited back. Joining us today is Luc Bourdon, director general of rail safety, and Carla White-Taylor, director, rail safety secretariat.

I understand you have an opening comment you'd like to start with, and then we'll move to questions and answers.

February 10th, 2011 / 3:30 p.m.

Luc Bourdon Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thanks to the members for having us here today again.

The minister, on Tuesday, touched on some of the key issues in the bill, and I'd like to take about four or five minutes to let you know what we've done with all the recommendations that were generated by the Railway Safety Act review panel—the 56 of them—and the 14 that were generated by SCOTIC.

We acted on them as soon as we got them, and the first thing that Rail Safety did was create an advisory council on railway safety with the companies, Transport Canada, and the Canadian Labour Congress. That was a recommendation of the Railway Safety Act review panel. So far we have had six meetings since that committee was put together, and that has proven to be very effective to communicate with all of our stakeholders. On the committee we have Transport Canada, the unions, the companies, the shippers, the suppliers, the provinces, the municipalities, as well as some observers.

We also created a Railway Safety Act review steering committee with the industry, Transport Canada, again, and the Canadian Labour Congress. The first thing we did was look at all the recommendations that did not require legislative amendments. They were divided among six working groups. All the working groups were also composed of union members from each of the railway unions, management, and the railway.

Just to give you an idea of what these committees have been able to achieve, one of the first committees we put together was on a safety management system. There have been several recommendations in the Railway Safety Act review and some recommendations as well done by SCOTIC. One of the recommendations that was provided by SCOTIC was to create a better tool to assist our stakeholders and Transport Canada to better manage rail safety. Carla has a copy of what has been published, which has been given to all our stakeholders. So we did publish some guidelines that are being used right now by all our stakeholders to help us with the implementation of a safety management system.

There were also some recommendations by SCOTIC for a non-punitive provision, which is in Bill C-33, as well as better employee involvement, which is also covered in the bill.

There is also one chapter dealing with information collection, analysis, and dissemination. We put together a working group, again, with unions, the railway, and Transport Canada, and it came up with some indicators that from now on will be shared between industry and the regulator through a data portal. We were fortunate to get about $2.3 million to enable the technology to get that done for us.

We also created a third working group—operation and proximity—that deals, among other topics, with fatigue, which was also a recommendation of SCOTIC . We recently published some fatigue guidelines to help train crews deal with fatigue-related issues. That was done, again, in cooperation with unions and management as well as with Dr. Patrick Sherry from the University of Denver, who helped us with this.

Also, a recommendation from SCOTIC was to enhance training. The industry has filed new rules with us for enhanced training for safety-sensitive positions.

Terms of closing crossings was also in the recommendations. We're dealing with industry to come up with a list of crossings that can be closed.

Regarding Operation Lifesaver, two of the members have raised some issues with respect to crossings and trespassing. We've added five engineers to deal with crossings, and $28 million was added to enhance crossings. We also added five outreach coordinators to assist us with education and awareness with respect to crossings and trespassing.

As for innovation and technology, there were a series of recommendations. Some came from the committee, others, from the panel. We created a new structure for managing these recommendations.

The working group, made up of transport company unions, has generated 25 new recommendations that have been scheduled to be carried out over the next few years. We were lucky to receive an additional $5.3 million to invest in technology. We also formed alliances with some universities and some other countries that share the same concerns as we do.

The fifth working group looked at environmental protection. Among other things, it focused on the best emergency measures for products that are not considered dangerous goods, but that may be dangerous for the environment. And the group made suggestions to us. Also, there are provisions in Bill C-33 that require railways to provide Transport Canada with environmental plans that will be checked.

The last working group focused on the process for establishing rules. Once again, these are the same stakeholders who are at the table, and they worked on creating a better methodology for establishing rules, a better participation of unions and better existing rules.

I came before this committee about three years ago and talked about some new technology we had acquired, the track assessment vehicle, that would help us enhance our capacity to do track inspection. We got two more of those vehicles. Right now we have up to five vehicles. So we're better equipped than we've ever been in the past to perform track inspection.

I just want to make sure you fully understand that all the recommendations in these two reports were not left on the shelf to collect dust. Most of the recommendations have been addressed.

In closing, I'd like to emphasize, on behalf of everybody in Rail Safety at Transport Canada, that we firmly believe that although we've received many tools to do a better job, Bill C-33 is probably the last one we would need in order to have a full tool kit.

On that, I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Chair.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Mr. Dhaliwal, seven minutes.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And I would like to thank Mr. Bourdon and Madam White-Taylor.

I'm going to start with the urban transit system. I recently met with TransLink in British Columbia, where I come from. It is my understanding that urban transit authorities were already treated differently, different entities, in the previous legislation. How many of the recommendations in the Railway Safety Act review said that you need to tighten up safety with urban transit authorities?

3:40 p.m.

Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport

Luc Bourdon

First of all, I'd like to say that the three urban transit authorities we're dealing with, which are currently under provincial jurisdiction, are very safe companies, and they're definitely not operating in an unsafe manner.

However, it all goes through the railway operating certificate. So you can't see that as a permit that each railway will need to obtain in order to operate on federal track. Most of what may be required in the railway operating certificate these commuter railways already have in place.

The second thing that is really important to note is that in Bill C-33, under proposed section 12, concerning the railway operating certificate, there is a provision under proposed paragraph 17.9(1)(c) that allows the Governor in Council to exempt some persons from the railway operating certificate. So there was already provision at the time we were going to do the regulation to exempt some class of persons.

I honestly would be pretty uncomfortable right now to decide who should or should not require an ROC based on their current safety record. I don't think that should be perceived as a reward, that if you have a good safety record you don't need an ROC.

The legislation, the way it is now, already has some provisions that would allow them to be exempt at the time we do the regulation.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC

But we have a proven record that these transit authorities, whether it's TransLink.... And they have accountability as well, on a different level of government, or a different order of government.

On the one hand, you are very happy with their past safety record. On the other hand, we know they're already accountable to government on a different order. So why would we again like to put them into a situation that would put more burden on them by bringing in Bill C-33?

3:40 p.m.

Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport

Luc Bourdon

There are two things. The first one is, and you touched on it, accountability. They may be accountable to the province or other governing bodies, but while they're operating on federal track, as I explained on Tuesday, we have the authority to measure compliance, but no authority to impose enforcement action when they're non-compliant. Therefore, we have to turn to the host railway and impose a corrective measure on the host railway, which then has to go and get the commuter operator to fix the issues they have to deal with.

The second thing is that I believe many of those commuter operators do already have in place what we're looking for. For instance, West Coast Express has a safety management system, which may be the tool that we will require to give an ROC. They already have one; they've asked us to audit their safety management system. However, we don't have the jurisdiction to do it.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC

You mentioned West Coast Express, so let me go to West Coast Express. They have 12 people who run their customer interface, like parking-related services. Today, if we look at their situation, the maintenance of the train is done by VIA Rail in that situation. The tracks are done by CP, and CP is also contracted to move trains. So to comply, we all know and you say they already have that provision in there that they can be exempted, but with this oversight in Bill C-33, where TransLink will have to hire more consultants, have you estimated how much it would additionally cost the taxpayers in British Columbia, and particularly in the--

3:40 p.m.

Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport

Luc Bourdon

One thing they mentioned to us, and we told them this would not apply to them, was that many of them were concerned about the maintenance of track. A track is owned by CP or CN, depending on which commuter rail we're talking about, so it will not be the responsibility of these commuter rails under the railway operating certificate to maintain the track or to be accountable for that track. It will be supplied by whoever they have a contract with.

As far as the rest--

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC

So it means it's not TransLink that has to supply...it would be CP then?

3:45 p.m.

Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport

Luc Bourdon

CP owns the track; CP and CN would be accountable for the maintenance of the track, as they are right now. The only thing that will change is when that commuter rail has its own equipment, then they'll be subject for the maintenance of their equipment to Transport Canada, rather than going after the host railway to get the corrective measures.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC

What would it protect? CP and CN are the ones that will maintain the tracks, and it's their responsibility to comply with Bill C-33. What protection does TransLink have if they try to manipulate that or try to monopolize the situation so that tomorrow the taxpayers and the commuters, particularly from the Mission area into the downtown core, will not be in jeopardy?

3:45 p.m.

Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport

Luc Bourdon

Nothing should change with respect to the track when you compare it with the current regime. Currently, they're operating on CN and CP track, and they're supplying the infrastructure for these commuter rails. Both CN and CP are responsible and accountable for maintaining a safe track. Nothing will change.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Thank you.

I have to move on. We'll come back to you.

Monsieur Guimond.

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions are along the same lines as my Liberal colleague's. The Bloc Québécois also has some concerns about this bill when it comes to areas of jurisdiction. Could you remind me what section it is in? I'm trying to find it. I didn't have time to write it down. I think it's subclause 9(1).

What section covers the permission for exemption granted to the government?

3:45 p.m.

Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport

Luc Bourdon

Are you talking about the exemption from the operating certificates? It's section 17.9, if I remember correctly.

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

Okay. Proposed subparagraph 17.9(1)(a) reads:

The Governor in Council may make regulations: (a) respecting conditions to be met …

3:45 p.m.

Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport

Luc Bourdon

I believe it's in proposed subparagraphs 17.9(1)(c) or (d) where you'll find that.

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

Proposed subparagraph (c) reads:

(c) exempting any class of persons from the application of section 17.1.

3:45 p.m.

Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

By persons, we mean legal entities as well.

3:45 p.m.

Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport

Luc Bourdon

The railways, yes.

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

We are aware of the concerns of the Agence métropolitaine de transport, the AMT, which you are quite familiar with, given your role. Because you said in your testimony on Tuesday that you are from Quebec. Quebec has the shortlines, as well, and they fall under Quebec's jurisdiction.

I don't want my colleague the parliamentary secretary to start right away on negotiating an amendment. But I am going to say that it's a sensitive topic for us.

Why didn't you put this directly in the act?

3:45 p.m.

Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport

Luc Bourdon

The possibility of exemption?

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

Yes. Why didn't you say straight out that the metropolitan transport agencies would be exempted? In proposed paragraph 17(9)(a), it says that the Governor in Council can make regulations for exemption.

Wouldn't it have been easier to say in the act that the metropolitan transport agencies and shortlines that come under provincial jurisdiction are exempt? Don't you think?