Transport Committee on April 29th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, thank you very much for that.

We're running out of time here and I'm going to give Mr. Mai, Mr. Pacetti, and two from the government side one question, and I think that'll take us up to the time.

Mr. Mai.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll ask my question to Teamsters Canada. You mentioned that we went from four to two crews, and then obviously in Lac-Mégantic we had one crew. Again, that's a big issue. But also with respect to fatigue management, I think we actually haven't covered it fully.

From what I read, again, from the great work that the analysts have been doing, they say, for instance, that according to the Railway Safety Act review “fatigue management plans have been developed and submitted to Transport Canada, Rail Safety Directorate by all railway companies.”

So can you comment on the extent to which fatigue management plans are respected by railway companies?

[Phil Benson]

I could deal with that.

As I understand—this is talking out of school—when they went to do an audit, they asked where the fatigue management plan was. They said it was in the cupboard. They said, “Oh no, no. You said we had to have one. You didn't say we had to use it.” The fatigue management is basically a mixture of collective bargaining rules and totally inadequate Hinton rules.

During the last cold snap we had, the polar vortex, CN totally ignored the rest rules contained in the collective agreements and basically ran fatigued crews for three months carrying dangerous goods, because the goods had to move and they had to make their profit margin, to hell with fatigue management. Under the act that you passed—we thank you for passing it—that will end. So again we're talking about the past and the future. Because under fatigue management based upon science, that nonsense can't happen.

Go ahead.

[Rex Beatty]

Just let me make a comment.

The issue of crew fatigue in the running trains has been litigated to the extent that we've had arbitrators' awards, including the Canada Industrial Relations Board, issuing cease and desist orders to the company to stop violating those rules. In fact, our next step now is that we've registered those awards with the federal courts just simply to force the companies to live up to those decisions, and they continue to violate them, even to this day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Pacetti has indicated he doesn't have a question.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

No, I don't want to take his time.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Just a quick question, Mr. Beatty.

What would the solution be, two crews at the same time in the cabin to avoid fatigue? You indicated you preferred the train didn't stop, so what would the alternative be?

[Rex Beatty]

Make sure they're properly scheduled so that they can have their rest, and it's predictable.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

So if the trains are properly scheduled, you would feel comfortable with that.

[Rex Beatty]

For sure. Actually, it was one of the recommendations out of the Hinton inquiry. Years ago, on the railroad, you used to be scheduled from the home and the away-from-home terminal. It's interesting that it's not there now. You're only scheduled out of the home terminal. It went backwards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Let me first clarify something with respect to the emergency directive issued under section 33 of the Railway Safety Act. Mr. Sullivan had alluded to it earlier, somehow, as if the TSB made a recommendation that trains should be diverted around municipalities. In fact, that is not the case. If one goes to the website you'll be able to read what the Transportation Safety Board's recommendation actually is. I'll quote it for the record:

The Department of Transport set stringent criteria for the operation of trains carrying dangerous goods, and require railway companies to conduct route planning and analysis as well as perform periodic risk assessments to ensure that risk control measures work.

So the TSB's recommendation was that the railway companies be compelled to do route planning analysis and risk assessment. They further recommended that in the U.S. They said Circular No. OT-55 and/or similar operating restrictions were necessary to alleviate many of the shortcomings. I invite anyone to take a look at the emergency directive pursuant to section 33 that is consistent with OT-55, and the government has fulfilled its objectives in that.

Further, I want to state for the record that I'm not sure that the issue for the NDP is the public's right to know, but the ability of communities to veto trains coming through their communities, if they don't like what's on the train. I think that's the real objective here, and if that were the case then nothing would be transported in this country.

I want to ask Mr. Ballantyne a question. We have had witnesses who've addressed the question of liability at this table. Liability in the case of needing to clean up, for example. That hasn't been addressed, or I didn't hear it in your comments, but I would like your perspective on this. We had shippers who were here, in particular the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, who suggested that liability belongs only to the railway companies. Is that a position that your membership share, or should shippers also bear some of the responsibility for the liability and not, in the end, taxpayers?

[Robert Ballantyne]

I think the whole issue of liability is something that both the Canadian Transportation Agency and Transport Canada are reviewing right now.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Consultations, I think, are just completed.

[Robert Ballantyne]

Consultations, that's right, and we have addressed that.

The government stated in the Speech from the Throne that the basic underlying philosophy that the government would follow is that the polluter pays. We agree with that. In other words, whoever has the care and responsibility of the goods, at any stage in the whole process, is the one who should be liable. We agree with that.

The owners of the goods clearly understand their responsibilities and where they are liable, and if there's joint liability, which there could be in some cases, the allocation of that joint liability would be set by the courts. The shippers, generally, agree with that. Where the goods are under the care of the railways or the truckers or whoever, whichever kind of carrier it is, they should bear the responsibility.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Ballantyne.

The last question goes to Mr. Braid.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also wanted to continue discussion with Mr. Ballantyne. I had a question for you earlier but didn't have the opportunity to ask it.

I want to continue with this topic as well. In your opening remarks, Mr. Ballantyne, you mentioned that in terms of recommendations you think there should be more robust audit and inspection. In fact, of course, the Auditor General said the same and we absolutely agree with that.

In addition, you indicated that there should be strong enforcement action, including administrative monetary penalties. I would ask you to please elaborate on those comments and what this might look like.

[Robert Ballantyne]

The way the Railway Safety Act is structured, it encourages the rail safety directorate and the inspectors they have across the country to carry out fairly rigorous inspections. In situations where the rail safety directorate sees there are chronic violations, then clearly there should be some penalty provision and the act provides for that. I think it provides for penalties of up to $250,000 per incident. Certainly, I would see that where there are chronic violations, continuing violations, there clearly needs to be some penalty and it does need to be applied and should be applied rigorously.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

But the mechanisms are there now as a result of Bill S-4 amendments.

[Robert Ballantyne]

Yes.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

That's great. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thanks very much, gentlemen, for being here today and participating in our study. We've had some great testimony, and we'll see everybody on Thursday.

The meeting is adjourned.