Transport Committee on Nov. 18th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You have....

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Madam Minister, how do you plan to phase out the DOT-111 tank cars, and why wouldn't you make the automatic braking system mandatory, as in the U.S.?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Those are two separate questions.

On the DOT-111 tank cars, as you're probably aware, the Association of American Railroads made a recommendation last week to the American regulators with respect to how they think we could move forward with respect to the DOT-111s, both in the case of not only retrofitting but what they think the specs should be.

In September I met with Secretary Foxx, who is the U.S. Secretary of Transportation. We spoke on the phone in July. We know this is a North American issue, so we have to work with our official counterparts in the United States, and we'll continue to do so. The AAR took a step last week with their letter and their proposal. This is the first step, but it's not in isolation; the railways don't own these tank cars, the shippers own them, and that's why we're also meeting with those involved in the chemical industry, for example, and those who are involved in the transport of oil.

There is no question that we need to make sure we take a serious look at these issues of the DOT-111 tank cars. We've already indicated as well that going forward from 2012 we would have the new design of the DOT-111 tank cars here in Canada. That's being implemented, and the new cars that roll off are doing so in that sense.

But there are 70,000 cars in North America and the majority of them are American. You have to work with counterparts in the United States because it's an integrated North American market. We'll continue to do so, and we'll continue to make sure we get to the right place.

With respect to the other issue on positive traction, the Via Rail incident in Burlington, in the GTA...one of the recommendations from the Transportation Safety Board was that we take a look at a physical restraint system. I wrote back to the Transportation Safety Board in September of this year that we would have a study group under the advisory council take a look at the issue, working with industry, the unions, and people who understand the issues, and report back to me by April 30, 2014, with their recommendations to deal with this.

Again, the Transportation Safety Board is looking for action, and we are certainly sending the message that we anticipate we'll hear recommendations and comments from this committee. I expect they'll be reporting to me on April 30 next year.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I'm sorry, Mr. Rousseau, the seven minutes just ran out.

We now go to Mr. McGuinty for seven minutes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here.

Minister, I want to make a few comments and get your reaction, if I might.

As I understand it, in the last fiscal year, 2012-13, your department spent approximately $34 million on rail safety. I think the number was $34.25 million.

There are conflicting views as to whether or not Transport Canada is spending all of its allocated resources actually on rail safety, but I wanted to raise this on behalf of all Canadians in the wake of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy and what are clearly now massive increases in the transportation of fossil fuels by rail. There are longer and longer trains carrying more and more material combined with heavier and heavier cargo. There are no signs of this slowing down. We know for a fact, Minister, that even if all current pipeline projects are approved in Canada, in 10 years from now national oil production will exceed pipeline capacity by one million barrels a day. There's going to be a lot of pressure on the rail system to carry more and more oil, if indeed we see a doubling of the exploitation of the Alberta oil sands. This is further compounded by the Bakken field in North Dakota, where the only way to get that oil out economically is by rail.

I want to review a few things with you.

First of all, we also know from the public accounts that marine safety has been cut by 25%, from 2011-12 to 2012-13, and road safety has been cut 5.5% over the same years. Aviation safety has been cut 11% over the same years. I think we've seen a very small increase in rail safety funding over those same two fiscal years, but just to put that in context, given the risks inherent in what we're seeing in rail safety in this sector, your government spends more money every year on economic action plan advertising than it does on rail safety. Your government is now averaging $40 million a year on economic action plan—let's be honest—propaganda ads.

Mr. Chair, for gosh sake, the government has even gone as far as to shrink-wrap GO Transit trains in downtown Toronto with EAP shrink-wrapped plastic for advertising. It's never been seen before; we're even advertising skills training programs, Mr. Chair, that don't exist.

I just want to ask, on behalf of Canadians, how is it possible that we've seen cuts in marine, road, and aviation safety, and very small increases in funding for rail safety, but your government has found $670 million for advertising since it arrived seven years ago, including $120 million on economic action plan advertising?

Minister, can you help us explain this to Canadians?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Well, Mr. Chair and colleague, what I would say is this. I know we have spent $100 million on rail safety in our government. I know that we have significantly invested in things such as grade crossings and in things such as ensuring that we have 100 inspectors. Those are the matters that are within our purview, that we take care of, and that we control.

But as I said to your colleague on the committee, the concept of rail safety in Canada isn't just about government regulation, and it isn't just about government involvement. There's a firm responsibility on the rail companies to operate in a safe manner. We have legislated that through regulations that are in place, but as well, we have safety management systems that are audited, that are reviewed, and that are implemented by the companies.

What the companies will tell you.... First of all, let me be very clear that CN and CP are the safest class 1 railways in North America, safer than the ones in the United States. They're very proud of their safety record, and we've seen a decrease in accidents in the past number of years. But my job isn't to be here to speak for the rail companies; my job is to ensure that we have rules and regulations, that we inspect their safety management systems, that we audit their systems, and that we're there to ensure the protection of the health and safety of Canadians.

What we can draw from Lac-Mégantic and what we can draw from the increased shipments by rail of crude oil is the fact that we need to take account of these changes, and we need to make sure we do the right thing going forward. That's why I'm asking your committee to do the review of the transportation of dangerous goods. That's why we're taking a hard look at the DOT-111 tankers, and that's why, moving forward, we're going to ensure that we're doing whatever we can to have the ability to move these goods as safely as you can. The statistics—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Minister, I—

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Yes, of course. I'll let you talk.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Minister, I agree, and I think most fair-minded Canadians would reasonably conclude, that it's a partnership between the regulator—the governments—and industry. I think people understand that.

From 2011 to 2012, in one year, the amount of oil that's being transported by rail has tripled: tripled. We have gone from 6,000 train carloads in 2009 to 15,000 this year. It's accelerating at such a pace that the railway companies, that you rightly point out are strong in safety, have rolled out $1 billion in rail infrastructure investments and placed orders for over 30,000 new tanker cars designed to do what? To carry oil.

Minister, unless I'm missing something, I don't know how we can make the magic of using the same amount of money or smaller amounts of money available to deal with safety, and fill that void, by simply saying that we're going to be good regulators and we're going to count on safety management systems that are administered by the private sector.

Are you saying now to Canadians that we don't need to increase the amount of money for rail safety in Canada?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

What I'm saying is that in the transportation of dangerous goods in general, 99.997% of the time the good makes it from its point of origin to its point of destination. As the increase in the shipments occur, then you will see more individual accidents and incidents. But what we have to do as regulators is to continue the work with respect to educating the rail companies in terms of SMS, the importance of a safety culture, which, as I have already pointed out, they have embraced in the last ten years. They have seen significant improvements in their own operations.

With respect to how that translates into the size of a budget, well, I'll let the department inform me as to what tools they need in order to carry out the level of enforcement and inspections. But as we move along, as I said in my opening comments, we are doing things in smarter regulations as well too, putting into the hands of the inspectors the ability to issue fines on the spot and ensuring that in inspections there is good coordination between the railways and Transport Canada. You know, 30,000 inspections were done in this country last year by Transport Canada officials. Both CN and CP have inspections that are ongoing all the time as well.

What I can say to you is that we will continue to take very seriously the issue of rail safety. We'll continue to put our resources into it. We'll continue to look for ways to do things more safely for Canadians.

Those goods still need to move; you know that. The goods need to move in the country no matter what kind they are. They are dangerous goods, but they still need to move for the benefits that are attributed to whatever those goods may be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Watson, you have seven minutes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, and the officials for being here today.

I hope Mr. McGuinty is not suggesting that we now reverse the system of safety management systems, layered with regulations that were brought in by previous Liberal governments. I think instead we have an opportunity here to look at how we can improve that.

Minister, before I get into questions related to the study you have suggested, I want to divert for just a brief moment on a matter of economic importance not only nationally but also locally and regionally back home. That's the Detroit River international crossing project. I always take the opportunity when ministers are here to ensure that we get an update on that.

I understand you met with Governor Snyder during the adjournment last week, the constituency work week. Perhaps you could provide some means of update on that and where we are at with respect to this project.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Yes, I was able to travel to Lansing, Michigan, to meet with Governor Snyder and his officials on the matter. It's a terribly exciting project. We know that a new bridge is needed there. It is the busiest Canada-U.S. border crossing.

Those are the kinds of things that Governor Snyder and I talked about, but we also talked about the thousands of jobs and the opportunities that will be created on both sides of the border. We figure that in trade, generally, about eight million American jobs and two million Canadian jobs depend on trade and investment between our two countries.

When you reiterate and you move forward together on opening yet another stable transportation link like the Detroit River international crossing, it's very important. It's an alternative that is very much needed. That, in and of itself, is expected to create between 10,000 and 15,000 construction jobs in Canada and the U.S.

In terms of moving forward, the governor and I said that we would meet again. We have agreed that oversight of the project and strong management between the two of us will be important, especially in the coming years. There is a lot of work to be done on the project, but we both have the shared goal to make sure that we can do this in a timely fashion, because the sooner we have the new bridge moving forward with respect to opening up trade, the better off both countries will be. We are completely in sync on the matter.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Minister, I'm pleased with your comments today on engaging the committee in a study with respect to safety management systems and the transportation of dangerous goods. I think Canadians will be pleased that you're engaging all parliamentarians through this particular committee in what would be a long-range and very in-depth study.

I think it's timely with respect to rail transport, which will be an important issue for this committee, and of course we'll get to look at the current status of the system of safety management systems, plus the additional layer of regulations and how that can be improved.

But more than just rail, you've recommended other modes. Can you explain briefly why it's important that we consider a comprehensive look at the other aspects and not just rail exclusively?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

I think it's important, if we're going to take an approach in this country—which we have—of having a safety culture that's in our manuals, our hiring policies, and how we do HR, that if you apply it to one mode, you should apply it across all other modes of transportation as well. It's good to take a look at the other ones. The reality, too, as you know, is that dangerous goods travel by all modes of transportation, so it's very important to ensure that you cover it all off in that context as well.

The final thing I would say is that perhaps my time at Labour made me realize the importance of occupational health and safety and how important that is to the functioning of the economy. As well, if transportation is the underpinning of our entire economy—how we move goods—then we want to make sure it's safe. This is the best way to do it, so I'm grateful to the committee for looking at both aspects.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I may direct this next question to the deputy minister.

When this committee was called on in the summer to consider whether to look at the aspect of rail transport and rail safety, it was important at the time that we had departmental officials in the field, both in terms of the investigating of potential breaches to the Railway Safety Act and in assisting other government officials in investigations relative to Lac-Mégantic. If we were to embark on a study, would officials be available to this committee to give us their expertise?

[Louis Lévesque]

Absolutely.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay. Very good.

Minister, of course it's the prevailing expectation that rail companies bear the primary responsibility and investment for ensuring rail safety. With respect to our oversight efforts, I understand that we continue to hire inspectors. Is that correct?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

That's correct, yes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay.

Last year, if I understand it correctly, there were 32,000 inspections conducted.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

That's correct.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

Safety management systems, some have been wrongly suggesting, are a form of deregulation. Would you be prepared to give your comments on that?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Yes, certainly. I don't think that's a fair estimation. Even the chair of the Transportation Safety Board says that safety management systems are the way forward.

These are the ways in which we ensure that a culture.... I know that I've been talking a lot about the culture, but it's so important to change the culture of a system in order to ensure that safety is top of mind every single day. Again, in my work when I was at Labour I used to speak to the Teamsters frequently, and I know that safety is the number one priority for them. They want their men and women to make sure that when they go to work at the beginning of the day they return home safe; “safe” has to be part of it. Transportation can inherently be dangerous just by the nature of what it is, whether it's rail, road, air, or marine, and we should do things as safely as we can.

Safety management systems are internationally recognized as the way forward and as the way in which we should be taking a look at things to ensure that the culture is implemented in everybody's everyday life in their work. I'm very comfortable with it. I absolutely think it's a system where you need both. You need a safety management system with the companies, and you need to have the regulation and the work of the enforcement on the Transport Canada side, too, in different ways. It's not the way it used to be in terms of how things were sought out and searched for. It's very much a progressive, smart way that ensures everybody has as their first priority the safety of the movement of the goods.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

And railway operating rules, once approved by the government, carry the force of regulation, correct?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

That's correct.