Evidence of meeting #48 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 employees.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada
We're not going to argue. Employees can talk to anybody they want to talk to.
But if you gave us those choices, our choice would always be to put the non-punitive reporting system in the context of the SMS.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
My final question is in relation to the land governance issue. I know this is a big issue in my riding. In northern Alberta we have a lot of rail crossings. We have a lot of communities that are built up around the rail. I know that's something we can't avoid when the economy in those communities is so tightly linked to the railroads.
Really, you're asking us—to my mind—to interfere in provincial jurisdiction, municipal government jurisdiction, and the alarm bells go off whenever that happens, because obviously we have a balance of power in this country. That's the first thing I see. I do see a difficulty with that. As well, though, don't you think it would be better for you as the rail industry to go to each province and try to arrange some sort of agreement with them? That's my first question.
Second, do you not see some difficulty in relation to this, if there is an obligation on the municipality to advise you within 300 metres of a rail line? My goodness gracious, in Lac La Biche, for instance, or Slave Lake, every single thing that goes on in the city or in the community has to go to you. Every single building in Lac La Biche is within 300 metres, I would say, of a rail line, for instance. So every time anybody wants to build anything, they have to send you notice. That just seems so onerous.
Are you prepared, every time you do something on your tracks that may affect someone around you—such as a business around you—to give them notice of that?
4:30 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada
We have to now. It's a requirement.
4:30 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada
I can't—
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I don't think it's that. I think it's just within—
4:30 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada
I don't have the regulation in front of me, but we are now required to consult with the local municipality and others for anything we do that will in any way impact....
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I agree.
My understanding of the regulation is that if it's going to directly affect that person.... You're asking for a blanket coverage of 300 metres within the rail line. I just find it absolutely onerous for municipalities and anybody involved in it, and I'd like to hear your input.
4:30 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada
Let me speak to the two things.
Number one, with regard to the jurisdictional issue—and I guess I'm a bit mystified because it already exists in the Aeronautics Act, and has existed for 40 or 50 years, and has not resulted, the last time I checked, in any major federal-provincial issues. This is a matter, in our view, of public safety. We think there are some obligations on the part of the federal government in that context. We don't think this would be in any way an onerous intrusion into provincial jurisdiction.
With regard to the 300 metres, we recommended 300 metres because in our work on proximity issues—noise, vibration, a whole range of other issues—that seems to be the standard that has emerged through practice and through other studies that have been done. If you're outside that kind of range, then it's highly unlikely that you're going to have anything impactful either way. If you're in that range, it's possible.
I should also say that just because a municipality sends a piece of paper saying we're giving notice, it doesn't necessarily mean that this triggers a big process. Right now, there are hundreds and hundreds of notices given every week to airports across the country, and most of them are of little or no consequence. But the few that are of consequence are important.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you, Chair, and thank you again, Mr. Mackay. I apologize if I mispronounced your name the first time around.
4:35 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada
That's not a problem.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
I'll continue with the 300-metre restriction that you're trying to impose. I come from an engineering, land surveying, and planning perspective. The city I come from, Surrey Delta, used to get notice within half a kilometre of a development, but to me it seemed like us putting fines and imposing costs on the local government. It doesn't make sense to me. I think those issues can be resolved between the railway companies and those municipalities or the provincial government, whatever works for you. To me, 300 metres seems to be very...it doesn't make sense to me. The thing is that within 300 metres there would be hardly any development, neither residential nor commercial. So I don't see that.
If I see a railway corridor, it's all about development. The development has to go around that corridor, so that's what I have some issues with.
4:35 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada
Let me be clear. We are not proposing at all that there would be no development in that 300 metres. We would be proposing that there would be notification if you wanted a development.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada
We do not get them. The only province in Canada that requires their municipalities to give us notice on developments is Ontario. We have had condos built within 75 metres of major railway tracks in B.C. Within six months, there's been a huge deluge of complaints and other problems, and safety issues as a result of those developments.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
4:35 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada
We're looking for notification.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
On another note, and I'm going to go back to Mr. McCallum's question, because you diverted those to Mr. Miller and Mr. Wilson. I'm going to give you only one option. He met with the GO Train people this morning, and I have a similar authority, TransLink, in my part of the woods.
We all know that TransLink has an excellent record, and excellent accountability to the public as well, because it's another level of government. If I give you one option and ask you the question, would you support their recommendation for them to be exempted from Bill C-33? Would you support that?
4:35 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada
We already said to them we would, but you need to be clear on this. We can live under either regime.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
But, again, if you had to pick one or the other, would you go with TransLink?
4:35 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada
We would go with their advice because it's their operation and they know best. The only logical reason we can see for the government proposing what they proposed is that they're worried about their ability to see through the class 1s and to take enforcement action if they see a public safety issue. The way the government is proposing to do it would make it easier for them. But from our perspective, it's their operation. They know what they need, and if they feel that this is onerous we are certainly not going to disagree with them.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
With respect to disclosing information about safety, there are only two national railways, and I don't think there is much competition. You run different tracks and you attract a different type of business. When I was talking to the Port Authority, that's what my feelings were.
You say that information should not be disclosed, because it puts you in a competitive situation. I don't believe it. In fact, it gives you credibility. It makes you accountable to the public, accountable to your workforce. It's not going to be possible for the employees to report. If you put on all those restrictions, how would they be able to report either to Transport Canada or to us here at committee to hear those grievances?
4:40 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada
I think you're speaking about some of the privileged information issues. I'm going to let Glen and Paul speak to them because they're specific to their companies.
