Transport Committee on April 3rd, 2014

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Fair enough. I would appreciate receiving that because it seems to me just from a quick 30,000-foot observation, if there is any risk at all, those would be better placed outside communities than inside communities.

[Keith E. Creel]

Absolutely.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

You obviously have transload facilities within cities or communities that may or may not have the capacity to respond to an emergency situation. Have you made that assessment? What plans do you have in terms of ensuring that this emergency response readiness is not only available but capable of handling whatever the risk might be?

[Keith E. Creel]

I'm going to ask Mr. Shearer to respond. That's the area of responsibility that he manages day to day.

[Keith Shearer, General Manager, Safety, Regulatory and Training, Canadian Pacific Railway]

To answer that specific question, sir, we have purchased additional equipment and we have it strategically located in areas of the network where we can very quickly mobilize it. We've also done training and we've helped emergency responders to make sure that they're schooled and up to speed, as my colleagues at CN have said, with respect to tank car safety and how to respond to tank cars. We've made a lot of effort on that front.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

That's with respect to what you can do, but with respect to the communities' capacity or the local firefighters' capacity, what have you done in that respect?

[Keith Shearer]

It's similar. We've worked closely with the local responders, the fire chiefs, and we're helping to educate them. We're also making sure that they're schooled on the equipment that we have available and that they know where it is. Again, we work very closely with them.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Is there any protocol about whether or not a transload facility can be located before all of that is done or before you have the readiness necessary in case of an event?

[Keith Shearer]

Sorry, can you repeat that?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Obviously you do those assessments, but is it your policy not to locate transload facilities until all of the safety aspects that are of concern are looked after?

[Keith Shearer]

Yes, we do a risk assessment when we're putting a transload facility in and we understand what the risks are and we work with the communities as well.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I'll move to DOT-111 cars. Obviously both CN and CP don't own a significant number of DOT-111s, but my understanding is there are about 80,000 DOT-111s in circulation, and the cost of getting those either retrofitted, which is maybe not possible, or manufactured is significant. Are you aware that there are that many cars out there? Are you aware of the length of time that it would be reasonable to expect that they would, over a course of time, be replaced? I understand from one of the manufacturers that was here that it's not a simple process to simply put those kinds of numbers on track.

Would anyone care to comment on that?

[Keith E. Creel]

I would say as far as how long it would take to replace those cars, you're limited to the capacity of what the manufacturers that make the cars can produce. As I understand, unless it has changed dramatically in the recent past, there's capacity out there for about 15,000 cars a year. The key point is, though, that the railways do not own these cars, so the decision-makers that have to make the decision to invest the money to convert the cars are actually the shippers, or the car owners or leasing companies, so it's beyond our realm and our ability to mandate that they do that.

[Jim Vena]

Let me add to that. At the end of the day, we don't own the cars. At CN we're changing out the cars we own. We have a plan. We just can't get it done in faster than three years, so we're going to take the three or four years to get it done. We'll do ones this year.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

The percentage is small in terms of the numbers of cars.

[Jim Vena]

I understand, but we have been clear as a rail industry that we need the cars. We've said what new type of tank car we need in place and we need the governments to step forward and say it's time to change out the DOT-111s, looking at everything and how fast it can be done. We would like the government both in the U.S. and Canada to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

We move to Mr. Mai.

I understand you're splitting your time with Ms. Morin.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Exactly, but I'll start. Unfortunately we have to deal with procedural stuff, but I would like to move a motion. The notice was sent before:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study on the recent recalls by General Motors; that one meeting be dedicated to the study; that, in relation to the study, witnesses be invited to appear at the earliest opportunity, including the Minister of Transport regarding the corrective action by Transport Canada to ensure the security of Canadians, as well as representatives of General Motors; and that every effort be made to ensure that the meeting be televised.

I don't know if we can have the discussion on the motion later on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I would have advised you to do this at the end of the meeting, made notice—

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Exactly.

So I am moving the motion and if you agree, we can have a discussion about it because I don't want to waste time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Instead of having that now we'll have it at the end of the meeting. I think that's good, especially when we have our witnesses here.

Do I have the consent of the committee to move it at the end of the meeting?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Ms. Morin, for five minutes.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Good morning. I am very happy to be back with the committee, especially in the context of this study. There are a lot of railways in my riding. CN and CP are both present in Lachine. That is why, gentlemen, I am happy that you are here with us.

I will first speak to Mr. Vena.

You mentioned in your testimony that accidents were very rare. In fact, you assured us that in our country rail transportation was safe in 99.997% of cases. I understand why my colleague Mr. Watson asked you if the Lac-Mégantic disaster had had an impact on perceptions.

Since we are talking about a 0.003% accident rate, what criteria do you use to assess progress in transportation safety?

[Jim Vena]

That number comes from the Association of American Railroads which gathers all the information from all the railroads. It came up with a number of incidents out of everything that was moved. It wasn't CN or us specifically. It was the AMR.