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.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, and my thanks to the witnesses for appearing today.
On the secure task, is there already a way for employees to report to Transport Canada or to the TSB if there's a situation?
4:25 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
It goes to TSB, and then TSB relays the information to us. We don't know who it is; we just know what the situation is.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
4:25 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
It's available; maybe it's not well known, though. That's the issue.
To correct Mr. Bevington, it was a recommendation of SCOTIC for the non-punitive system, not the RC review. I just wanted to clarify that.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you.
We're going to take a brief recess and invite our next guests to come forward.
Thank you again, and I'm sure we'll be in touch before this is done.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you. We're back for part two.
Joining us at the table is Mr. Phil Benson from Teamsters Canada; Mr. William Brehl, president, Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, maintenance of way employees division; and Mr. Rob Smith, national legislative director, Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, locomotive engineers.
Welcome.
I know you have some opening comments, so I'll ask you to make those. Then we'll move right to questions.
4:30 p.m.
Phil Benson Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the committee for having us here. As you know, it was on short notice.
I also want to thank the committee for the heavy-load lifting they did to help this bill appear before us--especially the government for bringing it forward in a timely manner.
We support the bill. We urge its fast passage, hopefully in the next 40 days, if possible, or whatever time. We think it came from a lot of work--from this committee, through the RSA review, and also from the department and staff. We'd like to commend Monsieur Bourdon and his staff, who always do an excellent job.
Basically, we see just four small areas for improvement. We've given you four small amendments.
The first one is just the standard, stock teamster amendment at this point--it actually is a teamster/Conservative amendment, a party amendment, or from the government--and that's to allow the committee to review the legislation for safety reasons. It appeared in the TDG Act, and also in the aviation act; though it died, we'd love it to come back.
All it is, basically, is a check on the regulatory process to make sure that the regulatory bodies we have in place always know that Parliament can have an overview and have a look. It is working in other areas, and we just urge you to agree to bring it forward again.
The second one is quite simply to urge you to have Rail Safety at Transport Canada be one of the contacts, one of the possibilities, to report safety conditions. No matter what you might hear from Monsieur Bourdon and the companies, etc., there's a climate of fear out there. Brother McDavid was fired for not having his boots correctly tied. We have all sorts of cases, especially with CN, where they have a less-than-modern view of labour relations. These are not companies that you're going to call and make a complaint to.
Right now, the way it is handled is actually through Rail Safety. Either we contact Rail Safety or the transport board calls Rail Safety. So let's just cut out the middleman and let's go right to the people who do the job--because they do. And they should be congratulated for doing it so well.
The next one is an issue that was raised regarding the RTCs, the control of the rails. Going back to 1999, in fact, CP Rail attempted to do exactly what some American companies are trying to do--namely, to switch their operations from the United States to Canada--and the answer was “no”. If you look at the regulations, which we can get to you or your people can get, it's basically for security reasons. That was the reason given. If you say it's a trade issue, trade is supposed to be fair trade, so that if they can get the work, we can get the work. We can never get the work, period.
I think as we move forward with the North American perimeter system, we should be cognizant that it's up to the Canadian government to have security taken care of up in Canada. These people eventually receive transport security clearance, probably under the TDG Act or some other act. That's the way it should be.
The last one deals with scheduling rules. You've heard of the fatigue management systems. Well, I'll be honest with you; it would be great if they were put in place, but they're not. The truth of the matter is that these issues are dealt with by collective bargaining. It comes through a long line, from the Hinton disaster and the review they're after....
The truth of the matter is that we've almost had two national strikes over one issue: scheduling rules. And I'll be blunt; I'll give thanks to the minister, to the department, to the FRMS people over there, for all the work they did to help us get an agreement. But we don't believe that scheduling rules are something that necessarily should be set by collective bargaining, especially putting the issue of potential strikes on the line.
If you like my paragraph 47.1(1)(c), I actually stole that language from the aviation act, which I worked on with the minister and Mr. Jean and others. That's where I stole it from.
Scheduling rules should conform with fatigue science, period. I think if we put this in the act, we may not actually ever have to use it, but it will force companies to actually deal with the issue instead of just talk about it.
With that, I'll pass it on to Mr. Brehl to continue our comments.
February 10th, 2011 / 4:35 p.m.
William Brehl President, Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, Maintenance of Way Employees Division, Teamsters Canada
Thank you, Phil.
Members of the committee, Mr. Chairman, honoured guests, good afternoon.
This is not my strong suit, so bear with me. I'm a track monkey by trade, and public speaking isn't my strength.
My name is William Brehl, and I'm the elected national president of the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, Maintenance of Way Employees Division, the TCRCMWED. I'm also an active and participatory member of the Advisory Council on Rail Safety, better known as ACRS.
Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak to Bill C-33, and more importantly, to the safety of railway operations in Canada.
The TCRCMWED represents roughly 4,000 Canadian men and women who inspect, maintain, repair, and build the track and structures of Canadian Pacific as well as those on almost two dozen short lines, including three that are owned and operated by CN.
For this reason, we are positioned like no one else to truly appreciate the importance of rail safety in this country. We are on the ground—in the trenches, so to speak—working and fighting to ensure safe rail infrastructure. We see its failings, and we can properly recommend solutions. We fight for rail safety as if our lives depend on it, because often they do.
Here it is not even two months into 2011, and the Transportation Safety Board statistics show that over 106 derailments have been reported so far this year. At least 33 of them involved dangerous commodities. Thirty-one crossing accidents have been reported to the TSB over the last six weeks, and Canadian railway operating rule violations such as exceeding or operating without authority, which basically means that a train has entered into unprotected track—the leading cause of on-track collisions—number in excess of 20 reported.
Once you stop and actually look at the numbers, no matter what spin the railroads put on their safety records, you realize the potential for disaster that is lurking out there.
As Teamsters, as railroaders, and as Canadian citizens, we welcome any and all improvements to the regulations, which are designed to protect our membership and the country as a whole from the hazards of unsafe railway operations.
They can and they must run safe, profitable lines. We must ensure through proper regulations and enforced compliance that the railroads put safety as the first priority instead of simply depending on good luck and gravity to keep their trains on the track.
Therefore, we support Bill C-33. We have also submitted four amendments, which we see as enhancing the bill and allowing it to be more effective. One of them, non-punitive reporting, I would like to briefly speak on now.
To truly get a handle on the root cause of accidents or systemic failures, you need accurate, comprehensive data. Breakdowns in procedure, as well as trends, may not be recognized if the information is lacking. That's why the reporting of all incidents is a necessity.
Railroads have long fostered a climate of fear—which we've talked about in this room quite a bit today—amongst their workers. As a 30-year CP maintenance of way employee, I can attest that this is nothing new. Rules violations are disciplined heavily. One accidental rules violation could lead to your dismissal. But the fear within our membership is not only of reporting their own errors. Often it is of reporting other contraventions to anyone beyond their immediate supervisor, even if they believe that their supervisor is covering the contraventions up. The optics within our ranks are that if you report something the railroad doesn't want reported, you will be punished. Punishments can range from less than desirable work assignments right up to discipline and/or dismissal.
As long as that underlying fear is there, we do not believe that proposed subparagraph 47.1(1)(a)(iv) will achieve the policy objective. We firmly believe that more is needed. Not only is non-punitive reporting a necessity to ensure the violations are getting reported, but we must have confidential reporting as well to alleviate these fears of hidden reprisals. We believe we should add to proposed section 47.1 our amendment to allow complaints directly to Transport Canada Rail Safety.
In the end, there is no downside to confidential third-party reporting, especially when you look at the positive benefits. After all, if the goal is to gather information to assist in the enforcement of the regulations as well as for the identification of problems, then it just makes sense to remove all of the roadblocks.
Allow the real railroaders the freedom and the security to honestly speak without fear of punishment or reprisal. That alone will move the issue of rail safety miles closer to resolution.
I'd like to thank the committee for their work on our behalf, and also for allowing me the chance to voice the concerns of our membership.
Thank you.
4:40 p.m.
Rob Smith National Legislative Director, Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, Locomotive Engineers, Teamsters Canada
Thank you, Phil and Bill.
First, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for giving us this opportunity to speak here today on behalf of the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, the TCRC.
My name is Rob Smith, and I have been recently elected to the position of national legislative director for the TCRC. I am also a qualified locomotive engineer and have worked in that capacity at Canadian Pacific Railway.
The TCRC represents approximately 10,000 members, which include conductors, rail traffic controllers, shopcraft workers, motor coach operators, customer service ambassadors, and locomotive engineers across Canada.
We are here today to briefly discuss Bill C-33, proposed amendments to the Railway Safety Act.
Our organization fully supports this bill as we feel it will address the safety and security concerns of our TCRC membership.
The TCRC welcomes the proposed bill as it will strengthen Transport Canada's enforcement powers to impose monetary penalties for safety and environmental contraventions by the railways. This is an essential element to ensure railway safety for all stakeholders.
The proposed bill also includes local railway companies that operate on federally regulated tracks governed under the rules of the Railway Safety Act. This also addresses an area of concern for our organization as we represent workers in these local railway companies.
The TCRC supports the proposed bill's addition of non-punitive internal reporting, the process for our membership, as well as additional accountability of the railways under the safety management systems.
In closing, I would like to again thank the committee for the opportunity to speak on behalf of our TCRC union members, who, as previously mentioned, are in full support of this bill. We urge you to support our position and have this bill passed in the interest of rail safety and operations throughout.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Mr. Chair, I would like to thank President William Brehl, my friend Phil Benson, and Mr. Smith for coming, and not only for coming here but in fact for the work you do. Any time a bill has come to the committee, you have always taken a leadership role.
Will, you are a great ambassador here on the Hill. I thank you for doing that.
On the other hand, it's very emotional for me when you raise the issue today of the workers. I came to this country in 1984 not speaking a word of English. I went through working with unions, to being a professional, to being a manager, to having my own business, and to today, sitting here representing the constituents of Newton—North Delta.
One thing I noticed is that if workers can go to their respective employment places without fear of being fired, they will be able to perform better. If that sword is hanging, you won't see that output there. Plus, it's a health and safety risk to their personal lives and to many other things.
Today you raise this issue. It's a very good issue. In fact, I already raised it with Transport Canada.
Bill, I would like to ask you about this, because I have had some interaction with your members, the Teamsters unions, in the Vancouver area, and I have heard similar complaints or similar concerns. Your members are concerned when it comes to non-punitive reporting to the companies without fear of retaliation, like being fired.
Do you agree that this is still out there?
4:45 p.m.
President, Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, Maintenance of Way Employees Division, Teamsters Canada
Yes, Sukh, it's more prevalent now than ever before. I remember a couple of years ago when you came with us to see the guys in Coquitlam, the bridge and building department. Two of our members were called in by their supervisor the next day and were asked why a member of Parliament was visiting us at work and what they had told him.
There is a real fear on the railroads of their getting caught with things. There are policies out there now where you can be dismissed if you take pictures on the railroad without their permission, if you use your cellphone to take pictures. If you show up at a derailment and somebody takes a picture with their cellphone, there is the threat of dismissal over that.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
When we see that threat of dismissal. You brought in a good recommendation that we should probably make part of Bill C-33, that employees be able to report directly to Transport Canada. Do you think it would make a big difference?
Two, because you know how many complaints will be coming in, what cost in dollars will it create for Transport Canada?
4:45 p.m.
President, Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, Maintenance of Way Employees Division, Teamsters Canada
I can't talk about how much it will cost Transport Canada to do it. It will be up to their budget. I'm willing to fight for a bigger budget for Transport Canada any time.
The necessity goes without saying. Luc Bourdon brought up Securitas. You made a very good point when you said it's not in the act. There is a place where they can do third-party reporting anonymously, but it's not in the act. It's not protected. If it's already out there, they know what's needed. We should have it protected within the act.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Basically, they can anonymously report it to the Transportation Safety Board and Transport Canada--
4:45 p.m.
President, Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, Maintenance of Way Employees Division, Teamsters Canada
I would say Transport Canada, not the Transportation Safety Board.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Okay. That's fine.
The next issue is Canadian trains entering the U.S. under the direction of rail traffic controllers. Do you think they should be operating in Canada?
4:50 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
Absolutely. The issue was rejected--recommendation 45--for trade reasons, as Mr. Bourdon said, talking about GATT and NAFTA. But the truth of the matter is that America has already rejected Canadian companies from doing exactly what one American company is trying to do now--take a short-line railroad's RTC work down to the United States.
We're all for fair trade and sometimes free trade. However, if the security provisions apply for Americans and they are using them as reasons, I think exactly the same security reasons should apply here. If an incident occurs, surely to goodness the Canadian public would want to know that it was a Canadian, secured by Canada, who could be hauled right to this committee, or anywhere else, to talk about it. I'm not sure that if something happens you will get an American to come up here and sit before you.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Isn't it the same as if they were located in the U.S. and Transport Canada had the authority?
4:50 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
We have no authority in the United States. Once you cross the border you have no authority.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
I can give you another example from the other end. There are some small tracks, such as the Burlington Northern Santa Fe line in Vancouver, that do not go too far into Canada. If the RTC were required to be in Canada, what kinds of exemptions or grandfathering would be appropriate for those situations?
4:50 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
If we follow the American prescription, it's 10 miles, and there are grandfathering provisions for companies that have done this prior to 1999. So this is something we can deal with through regulations for those unique circumstances that perhaps have been in the situation for a long time. That's the current requirement in the United States, and I'd live with that here.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for your presentation. I also want to congratulate you on your excellent research service. That wasn't ironic, on the contrary. In addition to supporting certain proposals, you are suggesting amendments to improve the act. You said at the start that you were in favour of the act, and we are taking good note of that. I also want to congratulate you on suggesting four amendments.
In a previous life, I worked in the pulp and paper industry. I was in charge of industrial relations, and I must admit, I was a lousy boss. I was on the side of management, but the union representatives respected me. I suppose that you see, in your facilities, in the various workplaces, signs with the words "safety first". This motto must always be posted. Everyone supports this principle. It's fine to talk about "safety first", everyone would like to be canonized as a saint at the end of their life on earth—I don't want to get into a religious debate, which should please the conservatives, who were starting to get worked up—but, unfortunately, they do not always behave accordingly.
I would like you to tell me about the working relationships with railway companies when it comes to health and safety. How do the committees operate, in general? I suppose there must be joint health and safety committees. There are management representatives and workers' representatives.
Something you said in your presentation surprised me. You don't mess around. You said "Rail Companies have fostered a climate of fear on the job sites...."
Rail companies have fostered a climate of fear on the job sites....
That might perhaps explain why you want this legislation adopted. It would give your members more protection.
So, how is it going on the health and safety side?