Transport Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes, that's the big challenge.

We'll go to Monsieur Gaudet.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to discuss private railway crossings. I have reached a certain age, and I won't dwell on that. There used to be a lot of animals along railway lines. Today, you don't see any animals outside. Accidents at private railway crossings must be quite rare.

[Cliff Mackay]

I'll ask my colleagues to comment, but no, we do get accidents on private crossings as well as on public crossings. We get them in both places.

[Glen Wilson]

That's absolutely correct, as Mr. Mackay said. You have to keep in mind as well that a private crossing can sometimes be a very high-traffic crossing into a retail outlet or some other location that draws a great many people.

[Paul Miller]

Sir, we agree with that as well. The key, as was mentioned a few moments ago, is to do a full assessment of these crossings: risk, benefit to the public, whether there is other easy access for the public or the landowner so that they can get across.

One of the reasons for the success of the program in the U.S. is that it takes a very holistic view of crossings over a particular stretch of territory. Can we close three, upgrade two to a higher level of safety, and then improve safety and maintain convenience to the public? It's very much an individual case.

But there are accidents at both types of crossings.

[John Marginson]

Absolutely. Typically, at a private crossing, the driveway or the access road to the dwelling is not maintained as it would be for a public crossing. Snow removal may not be adequate either. So there is a whole other set of risks associated with private crossings. That's why it is important that we do a risk assessment of each and every crossing to see which ones are most deserving of our attention, and funding, of course.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

There were 1,038 accidents and 68 derailments. How much does each company invest annually in repairing and maintaining railway lines? I am putting this question to the three companies here.

[Glen Wilson]

Our industry, Monsieur Gaudet, is one of the most capital-intensive industries. A much higher percentage of revenues earned are reinvested into maintaining the infrastructure because it's a private infrastructure. We at Canadian Pacific have an almost $1 billion capital program this year in 2011. As well, there's another operating and maintenance budget in the hundreds of millions of dollars that goes into maintaining the infrastructure.

[Paul Miller]

For CN, Monsieur Gaudet, our capital budget in 2010 was about $1.6 billion. It'll be about $1.7 billion in 2011. Roughly $1.2 billion of that will be on basic plant and equipment renewal, track infrastructure renewal.

[John Marginson]

In the case of VIA, as I mentioned earlier, we have a relatively small amount of track, roughly 160 miles or so. The operating funds that we spend certainly pale in comparison to the freight railroads. I can say, though, that with the assistance of the economic action plan funding for this purpose, over the last couple of years and into the next couple of years we'll be spending about $0.5 billion just on our track, as well as on freight track.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

That seems to be a lot of money, $1.5 billion. What are these improvements? If there were 68 derailments, this means that something was not right somewhere. Do you have inspectors who verify your lines? Do they check the wheels? If you take asphalt highways as an example, we know that after 35 years they have to be resurfaced. The same thing must be true at CN. I never saw a railway line closed because of construction or repairs. In my riding, however, there is no long railway line, so I cannot really talk about this very much. However, I come to Ontario every week and I go over railway crossings. I always take look to see whether the railways are maintained, as often there are not many trains that use them anymore. When the line is rusty that means there is not much traffic on that railway line.

[Cliff Mackay]

I'll ask my colleagues to comment, but I should make one observation to you. There are over 45,000 kilometres of rail in Canada. That makes the rail network one-third bigger than the national highway system. So this is a huge network we're talking about here.

But I'll ask my colleagues to speak on the maintenance side, the inspection.

[Glen Wilson]

When you speak of inspection, I'll highlight a couple of areas that the technology is really taking us forward on. First of all, for context, Canadian railways have a very enviable safety record in terms of train accident rates, internationally and when compared to the U.S. class 1 industry.

We do 55,000 miles a year of ultrasonic rail testing. These are advanced machines that roll along the track and can detect flaws inside the rail that can't be detected any longer with visual inspection. It used to be that the operator had to get out and check defects when they found them. We're now trying to move that to a broader basis of non-stop testing so that we can go further, do more inspection using technology. And we think that's really the key to improving the infrastructure further, to turn maintenance forces today from finders into fixers. In other words, they're not searching for the defect; they're focusing their efforts on repairing defects that are located by these advanced technologies that are very expensive to operate but which we're investing in heavily as part of our programs, and which are really paying significant dividends going forward.

[Paul Miller]

From the CN side, Monsieur Gaudet, we've tripled our ultrasonic rail detection since about 2003. In 2010 it was just over 200,000 miles. It's far in excess of the minimum regulatory requirement. Track geometry is a similar story. We've added a second track geometry test vehicle at considerable capital expense.

In a lot of ways, there is no better replacement than the human eyeball and the human ear, and to watch a train go by, watch a train go over the plants; we're very focused on that.

Of course, as well, we have our friends at Transport Canada who are also out there inspecting our track and seeing if they feel that we're not doing everything we should be. We take anything they say, of course, very seriously.

So there is considerable inspection of the track.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

I'm now going to Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for attending today.

It's good to see you again, Mr. Mackay. It's always good to see the rail here in front of us. I know that sometimes we have not seen eye to eye in relation to some of the scenarios, often in relation to rail safety. Of course, we have taken some serious steps with the government, and I think the rail has as well.

I want to start with the committee that was set up in relation to the review itself. I've looked at their CVs, and these are three individuals who, to my mind, are very talented indeed. We have a past minister of the Alberta government, as well as Mr. Edison, who had 40 years of experience with CN, and Bill LeGrow--

[Paul Miller]

This is with regard to the service review. These are the....

Sorry, sir. I shouldn't interrupt.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I don't have a lot of time; I want to share with Mr. Trost anyway.

The people who are involved with the review, to my mind, are very talented indeed and bring extensive experience with them.

I'm curious, particularly in relation to some of the evidence you gave today about a non-punitive reporting system. You know, we dealt with reporting systems for SMS in the aviation industry some time ago. If there is a non-punitive SMS reporting system to the company, why would there be need for a reporting system to, for instance, TSB, which, as I understand it, has a system in place called Securitas, or one to Transport Canada? I'd just like to have your views on that.

We heard from the Teamsters the other day. They were very clear that they wanted a direct line to Transport Canada. What do you see as the issue here, and what would be your recommendations?

[Cliff Mackay]

Let me start with the principle. The principle we operate on is that at the end of the day, yes, the government should very much oversee us on safety. At the end of the day, we are responsible for the safe operation of our industry, period.

Let me just put that principle on the table, and then I'll ask Paul and Glen and John to make a comment specifically on this.

[Paul Miller]

Mr. Jean, even today there are multiple ways into the system for an employee to report. As I mentioned, they can report directly to Transport Canada now, and they do, because Transport Canada in turn speaks with us, whether that's an official or a semi-unofficial method. It certainly is out there, and we have absolutely no issue with it.

There should be a non-punitive confidential reporting mechanism within the SMS. We have that now. It's not well managed at our place. I'm certainly not speaking for the other two companies. We know we have work to do in that regard.

Again, we'd like to get to that place in the development of our safety culture, that those concerns--

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Sorry. I don't have a lot of time.

I understand that it might not be working perfectly, but we want it to work perfectly. I mean no disrespect, but when you said that safe operation of the industry is your responsibility, the government also has a responsibility. Obviously, through our regulatory powers, we need to make sure that Canadians are safe at crossings or wherever they may be.

I would have to argue with you. We have a responsibility too to make sure that you're keeping people safe everywhere. With respect, what would you see as the best answer at this stage? Would you suggest a non-punitive reporting system directly to Transport Canada or to the TSB? What would your recommendation be, in very short words?

Mr. Mackay.

[Cliff Mackay]

Given those choices, clearly it has to be within the context of the SMS system within the individual corporation, but at the end of the day, they are the employees of the corporation, and that corporation has an obligation to deal with safety within its own operations.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

So you would like to not see a new reporting system, but you're okay with the current reporting system through Securitas with the TSB?

[Cliff Mackay]

Yes. I mean--

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

From what I understand, your employees are going directly to Transport Canada now.