Transport Committee on Feb. 17th, 2011

[Doug Kelsey]

I'd be happy to tell you.

On West Coast Express, I run a contract-out type of operation. I have it reduced to only 12 full-time employees who are fully active on all kinds of elements of the business.

If I go back to what I would consider to be a very successful Olympic Games in Vancouver, where I was head of the transportation, by government's involvement, they had a department of national exercises that were brought in to help us run exercises. It took years to run just one exercise to meet those requirements, when in fact under my own mechanisms, by doing it in a more commercial approach, I ran 13 exercises in 10 weeks.

There's a huge resource side that government, from its distance, through having the power, may be disconnected from the practicality and the nimbleness of being appropriate.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Then why not shorten the relationship to a direct relationship? I don't understand the argument there. You have an indirect relationship that you're complaining about in that regard. Why not shorten it up and sit down and talk about what elements go into the regulation for a rail operating certificate? One thing I've learned about Transport Canada is that they've been very flexible and accommodating in a lot of ways in addressing safety issues.

As well, somebody brought up the issue of safety management systems and that they've invited Transport Canada to do audits of their system. Was that you, Mr. Percy? Are you the one who raised that?

[Gregory Percy]

We have a third party doing safety audits--

[Doug Kelsey]

I had raised that issue.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Kelsey; that was you.

Transport Canada would need authority to do that. This bill provides that authority. Do you have any objection to that authority being established through Bill C-33? I mean, if you want them to come in and audit, they'd need the authority to do it by law.

[Doug Kelsey]

I don't think they need the authority. They just need to ask, as exemplified by past practices.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have to stop it there; I'm sorry.

Mr. McCallum.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Nancy Fréchette]

Excuse me...

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have to go Mr. McCallum. Perhaps you can answer in a future question.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I'd like to first ask each of our three witnesses a very simple question--namely, were you consulted in the process of the drafting of this legislation by the government?

[Doug Kelsey]

In the case of West Coast Express, no.

[Gregory Percy]

GO Transit had a representative on a review committee later in the process.

[Nancy Fréchette]

We didn't participate.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

No. Thank you.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I want to put forward one point of view and see what your reaction is.

It could be argued that if a railway is operating on federally controlled track, the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that anyone using these tracks is doing so safely, and failure to do so could be construed as an abdication of federal responsibility, especially if there were, God forbid, a severe accident. Then we would have abdicated our regulatory responsibility.

How would you react to that point of view, Mr. Percy?

[Gregory Percy]

The commercial contract today between our commuter rail agency and a class one requires the class one to keep the railway corridor and whatever aspect of operations they are involved with consistent with all safety standards that exist today. We pay for that privilege today, and as federal railroads they have to apply to federal standards.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Kelsey.

[Doug Kelsey]

I would very much echo Mr. Percy's comments. I would also add, from an oversight perspective, that there is a very good trail of due diligence in the relationship between the federal government, Transport Canada, and ourselves around the existing relationships that go on, inspections, as I've already indicated.

For me, there can be quite appropriate responsibility but without unique legislation.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Madame Fréchette.

[Nancy Fréchette]

Thank you.

I would like to add to the information provided by my colleagues.

The contractual agreements we have with the CN and CP railway companies deal, among other things, with standards and regulations, namely the requirement on the part of the railway companies to respect the Railway Safety Act. Furthermore, these agreements outline the ability for agencies to go and see for themselves what is happening on the railways.

It is unfortunate that Mr. Watson is not in the room. We were talking about costs, earlier. Today, we already pay a high price for access rights in order to use these railways. If the costs go up, we will be forced to double the management structure that exists within the railway companies in our part of the country. This will lead to a duplication of the tasks and the costs, and we will unfortunately have to pass this on to taxpayers.

One must certainly question the value added by these measures. The bill...

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I'm sorry, I'm running out of time and I have one more question, which I'd like to try to get you all to answer. It is a little bit repetitive of earlier questions, but I wasn't quite clear on the answer.

The question has to do with the cost of any additional regulatory burden of obtaining this railway operator certificate. It may be that you have to do similar things under your current regulatory system and that such matters would not impose a large burden, or it may be that they would. I'm still not quite clear on that.

Maybe I could start with Mr. Kelsey.

[Doug Kelsey]

My own take on this is that through the relationship between Transport Canada and the class one railways, we're of the belief that there's nothing that can't be handled through the class ones for those who run on their tracks, including commuter rail operators. The class ones own the assets and infrastructure. I say that because in the case of GO Transit, a significant portion is owned by GO Transit itself.

We are happy to comply and even invite in, as part of the inspection process, as to how this might actually play out, by Transport Canada overseeing the class ones, and those that run on their infrastructure, like ourselves, could also be conducting those sample inspections if need be, or other inspections, through the class one by coming on our rolling stock and the like. So I think that mechanism would work quite effectively and still give Transport Canada the appropriate accountabilities and checks and balances.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Monsieur Plamondon.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Fréchette, you talked earlier about costs. Mr. Watson was absent from the room for a minute, very understandably so, and I would therefore like you to repeat what you stated in his absence with regard to costs. Our two other witnesses provided answers with regard to the costs, but you did not answer Mr. Watson's question. I am allowing you time to outline these costs, for information purposes.

[Nancy Fréchette]

With regard to the costs...