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.
4:55 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
Thank you so much, sir. I really appreciate that question, and it probably reflects your background, coming from labour.
Unfortunately, Canadian National has taken a zero tolerance policy. Basically, everything you do will earn you demerits and get you out the door. As it works out, it means we have to go to grievances--I know you'll be familiar with the grievance procedure--and generally we will win.
Currently at CN they have more than 6,000 grievances.
4:55 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
There are 6,000. And the way the grievance procedure works in the railway, you and I will be retired before that grievance is heard, if your number is 6,001.
A climate of fear is what we've called it. It's a style of management that says they're going to change our lives and threaten our jobs and we'll do whatever they want us to do, without complaint. That's the way they run their company.
I'll pass it on to my friends, who will have more direct.... Mr. Brehl looks after CP more than CN, but I'm sure Mr. Smith will have some direct stories.
When I first talked about Brother McDavid, who was fired for not having his boot laces correctly tied when leaving a cab to check out, some MPs told me I was a liar and I had made it up. I proceeded to bring them the case of Brother McDavid. I told him it would make him a poster boy. He was returned to work with all demerits removed, with interest pay--and you know the results of that. The company is willing to pay that to get their absolute control over membership.
Thank God we have the Teamsters union, because their answer is no.
When you ask these companies politely and nicely to do things...these are not companies like those in the air world who have a more mature relationship. These companies are not particularly friendly to workers. And quite bluntly, if they treat us that way, I'm sure they treat their customers the same way.
I'm shocked. If I were a shareholder I would be upset. You're absolutely correct that workers who are happy, who feel they have a place, are more productive and make more money for a company. I just wonder how much money those companies are leaving on the table for the shareholders.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
I think you've given a good answer.
The second topic I would like you to talk about is fatigue. One of my friends in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean is the only survivor of a head-on collision of two trains. The collision happened in the middle of the night, at 3:00 or 4:00 in the morning. My friend, who was in the locomotive pulling two trains of goods, said to his crew mate that he thought another train was coming because he had just seen the light through the trees. He was right. He was thrown from the car, but his companion died, as did the two crew members in the other locomotive. He was the only survivor.
You are talking about fatigue, and you are suggesting an amendment that we will study seriously. Is the time spent waiting before work calculated? From speaking with airline pilots and cabin crew, we know that there is time spent waiting before starting work. It's not like someone shows up at work at 8:02 in the morning and the train leaves at 8:03. That's not how it works. I have never driven a train, nor have you, since you're a lobbyist, but how does that work?
4:55 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
It's a very important question.
The rest rules and work rules that Mr. Bourdon was talking about are absolutely laughable by modern fatigue science.
Teamsters Canada took the lead in helping the previous government move forward in the hours of service of trucking, which are still a little bit too long. However, the rules in there are compliant with fatigue science. It's just too long a day.
I'm currently representing Teamsters on a committee examining fatigue management for pilots. I will tell you, they're light years ahead.
The main problem, when I hear from the leadership in the union, is scheduling. That's why we address scheduling. It's not always the hours they work; it's the hours they have to wait.
I have a dear friend, and I was visiting his house. He was watching a computer—and this is what happens. You're supposed to go out at midnight, and then it's 2, then 4, then 6, then 8, then 10. Do you go back to bed? You never know.
By the time you show up to work, you could have been up all day. That's why we almost had two strikes trying to get scheduling rules, something the companies said, when they were here, that they're willing to do. Mr. Bourdon is saying they're willing to do it. So how come we have to almost push them to a national strike to get it? It's the scheduling rules.
We propose windows, so a person would be available for four or six hours, whatever the period was, and then they're off the clock. We offered to do it with the company at no charge. No standby, no nothing. Why? This is the issue for rails: fatigue.
Everybody ignored it. You didn't. Thank God this committee didn't do it. You did one bang-up job. All we're trying to do is finish it off and give some legislative authority to push the minister if the companies don't want to do it.
I'm very glad you asked the question. It is a really important issue, and I'm so sorry that your friend died. But it is not unique. Accidents happen with people.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
No, he was the only survivor. There were three dead.
5 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
And I want to thank you all for joining us today.
I really appreciate the work you've done here. The issues that have been raised by the other committee members fit very well with what you're saying here. I mentioned earlier about the need for oversight of regulations. I like that. I think that's an excellent thing that Parliament has a responsibility for. The bureaucrats have said, give us a toolbox and we'll take care of the problem. Well, there's a lot more to good legislation than giving somebody some wrenches and a spanner. We need to know how those are being used. We need to know that. And without seeing those regulations, you can't get to the truth of it.
So I really appreciate that idea, and we'll certainly look at seeing how we can put that forward in an amendment.
Second, the previous witnesses said the idea of the internal reporting came out of this committee. Well, it might have come out of this committee before I was here, but I haven't heard any evidence in front of me over aviation that suggests to me that this internal reporting is a good idea. In fact, the opposite seems the case; that's not working out very well. If we can't learn from the mistakes we make, how are we to move ahead? I think that's another one we could definitely support.
The two other items, certainly, once again, are excellent positions.
I do support what you've brought here in front of me, and I really think they're all very sensible and sane amendments. But what really bugs me is the number of deaths we have of people on the rail lines and at the level crossings. I asked the minister about the money they were putting in the system to upgrade the level crossings. Is that anywhere near adequate, in your judgment?
5 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
Just on the deaths, I'll pass it over because they'll have more information. I think, actually, Mr. Smith could talk about the deaths because I think they just conducted a study.
I'll leave Mr. Smith to talk about it.
5 p.m.
National Legislative Director, Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, Locomotive Engineers, Teamsters Canada
There is an ongoing study right now with Transport Canada. It's a suicide study. There is a draft out at this time. I know they've spoken in Washington, and they're actually working with the U.S. as well.
The railway suicides in the U.S. are much lower than they are here, and I think that's possibly because guns are more accessible in the U.S. But we do have a large problem with suicides, and our members who are involved in those sometimes never come back to work. That's certainly a huge concern for us. Their time off is not long enough after one of these incidents. I really think the study needs to go forward. I think the funding should be there for that. I believe it's going for another two years.
That's really all the information I have on it right now, but it is ongoing and it's a very important issue.
5:05 p.m.
President, Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, Maintenance of Way Employees Division, Teamsters Canada
Mr. Bevington, you asked if the money that was budgeted for the level crossings was enough. It will never be enough as long as we have railways, if you have level crossings. Any time the public or road traffic intersects with a railway, there's a danger. But it's going to go a long way in minimizing the danger and minimizing the risks. We need more gates—of course we need more gates—we need more flashing lights, we need more warning for all the level crossings across the country, but until there's a bottomless pit of money, it isn't going to happen.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
But with $21 million and 44,000 level crossings, the math doesn't seem to add up at all to me. It seems to be a drop in the bucket as to what would be required to fix them up.
And then we talk about fencing. I watched the television news last night about the fellow who got hit by a train, and I'm looking at houses all around and a train track with no fencing and no visible means of keeping people away from that rail. Is that an acceptable situation?
5:05 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
I'd say, to give credit, that it was probably the first new money we saw in years. So we'll say thank you very much for giving us any money. It's a real positive.
You have to remember, too, that there's a difference. As you start getting near cities, especially near towns and cities, municipalities have much more say about what goes around. For example, they do not want us to operate the whistle because it keeps people awake. Well, exactly how am I supposed to warn somebody to get off the track?
So when you're talking about fencing, that may, in fact, be a city ordinance or a municipal ordinance. It may be a decision of the city to put fencing in. As cities grow around railways, is it necessarily the railway's responsibility to build a fence? It is the government's? Is it the municipality's?
I'm not sure if it's this body that is supposed to--
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
These railroads are privately owned. Their tracks are privately owned by companies. They're in a non-competitive position, so they can pass their costs of operation on to their customers. Is that correct?
February 10th, 2011 / 5:05 p.m.
President, Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, Maintenance of Way Employees Division, Teamsters Canada
Yes.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Then why, through regulation, can we not demand that the railway companies do proper safety procedures for pedestrians, for walkways, and for all the things that will make things safer for people? What's the problem there? They're just going to pass the cost on to their customers.
5:05 p.m.
President, Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, Maintenance of Way Employees Division, Teamsters Canada
I wouldn't argue that with you, Brother.
5:05 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
That's not up to us, Mr. Bevington. It's up to the committee to decide to bring forward an amendment. Then we'll come back and support it.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Through you, to our witnesses, in the past, the Teamsters have expressed some concern about the regulatory process. What would be the advantage to the Teamsters of having a parliamentary committee review regulations made under the Railway Safety Act upon request?
5:05 p.m.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
Thank you for the question.
Yes, we've expressed a lot of concerns in the past. Before we get to the brickbat, we'll give out the credit. The Railway Safety Act advisory council, the way it was going to be set up, was going to be a disaster. I'll give full credit to the minister and to our parliamentary secretary here for bringing in a procedure and a process that I think, in the long run, will produce exactly the same results as we've seen in the transportation of dangerous goods. We're not there yet.
Just like in the TDG world and the aviation world before, comments I've had from senior bureaucrats are that the amendment we got in other bills was one of the best checks they had. What they said, very simply, Mrs. Gallant, to the senior people was, “Yes, we could do that, but those damn Teamsters are going to get in front of a transport committee. And what's the public going to think about it?”
It's one of those little tools in our tool box. I hope we never have to come back to this committee for safety. It's just in our tool box for making the regulatory process work better.
