Evidence of meeting #24 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was safety.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Tweed, it's great to see you and great to have you back in the nation's capital.
I have a quick question about the initial response car. There's been good discussion about that this morning already. I'm curious to know when your company put this in place. Was this a recent initiative or has it been some time, Mr. Tweed?
10:05 a.m.
President, OmniTRAX Canada
It is relatively new, and we don't do it on every shipment that we make. It's based on what product we're carrying. But the real initiative was our proposal to move crude oil. That was one of the recommendations we took from not only the communities but also the professionals who said that to do what we have to do in the type of environment we work in, they would strongly recommend it. So, we've just included it in our business plan.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Great. Are you aware of whether any other rail companies in Canada or North America take a similar approach?
10:05 a.m.
President, OmniTRAX Canada
I'm not. I'm sure some do. If I may just make a comment, we talked about reducing speeds through communities, and we're doing that because we've had discussions with those communities, and it's a feel-safe thing for them. But the reality is, whether you're fixing a road or an airport or a highway, you reduce speeds until you get it fixed. That's the reality. You can say that's not the answer. It's not the whole answer, but you just have to drive down any major highway that's under repair and, basically, everybody slows down.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
That's great. Thank you.
Mr. Tweed, I want to ask you about DOT-111 cars. Are you using any now?
10:05 a.m.
President, OmniTRAX Canada
We are. We basically take the supply that's given to us by CN. We're on the CN line switch. But again, we aren't moving crude at this point in time. We're moving strictly fuel petroleum, aviation diesel.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
How many DOT-111 cars are you using, approximately?
Finally, could you also comment on Minister Raitt's recent announcement that those DOT-111 cars will be phased out over a period of three years?
10:05 a.m.
President, OmniTRAX Canada
We basically use what's allocated to us at the time, but I support the decision to do that. The only caution I have is that it's no different than supply and demand, in that when you take the supply away you create another consequence, that being, how do you get the product to people at any risk if you don't have the capability of moving it? That's the challenge I think we all face.
I would just make the comparison that David mentioned about transloading. We've had lots of opportunity to set up transloading facilities along our rail line. Our biggest challenge is getting the rail cars to move the product. If we don't get the rail car allocation we need there is no point in setting up a transload facility because there will be no product moving. That's our biggest challenge going into the new year right now.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thank you.
Mr. Tweed, you talked a number of times today about your response car. Just for clarification, your company is proposing to do this because you're planning on moving crude oil. Once you have that infrastructure and the response car, is your plan to use it as well when you're moving, say, aviation fuel, and other things or is it strictly for the crude oil?
10:05 a.m.
President, OmniTRAX Canada
Right now it's based on our crude oil proposal. But I think as we move forward you're going to see regulations that are going to require or at least suggest that's part of the process that you need.
May 1st, 2014 / 10:05 a.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to the witnesses for being here today.
I will begin with Mr. Demers and then move on to Mr. Marit.
Mr. Demers, you raised some important points. To be very clear, I want to point out that you are here as an individual, but you are nevertheless a member of the Fédération québécoise des municipalités and of FCM.
As you clearly stated, the fact that municipalities are now getting information is a step in the right direction. The previous minister said you should inquire under the Access to Information Act about what goods were being transported in your region. We also approve of that improvement.
However, you also said you wanted to get information in real time. The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs appeared before our committee at our last meeting. The witnesses asserted that it might not be necessary to obtain information in real time but that it would be a good idea at least to get the information in advance. They also said they were not yet getting all the information. They asked the government to do more to ensure that municipalities know in advance what is circulating on their land so they can plan the necessary resources more effectively. As Mr. Marit and the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs said, there are a lot of voluntary firefighters. Consequently, we should focus on prevention.
Could FCM's next recommendation be, for example, that the municipalities should receive information in advance? We have not yet heard that request. Mr. McGuinty mentioned it, and we in the NDP also encourage efforts in that direction because we know that is what the municipalities want. And yet we are not hearing that from FCM. Can you tell me whether that is a clear position of the Fédération québécoise des municipalités?
10:10 a.m.
Mayor, Municipalité de Sainte-Catherine-de-Hatley, As an Individual
The Fédération québécoise des municipalités is definitely requesting it.
It may also be a good idea to define what is meant by "in real time". The point is not necessarily to know that the train will be coming through in five minutes and that it is transporting a particular quantity of such and such a product. We will not be calling out the fire trucks and stationing them alongside the rail line in the event an incident may occur.
When we say real time, that means we would like to know what goods will be transported across the region over the next few days or months. That way, we can determine whether we are ready and whether our equipment is adequate should something happen. Being ready does not mean that every village should equip itself in the same way as New York. What I want is for us to know what we really can expect.
When the accident occurred in Lac-Mégantic, I asked myself a few questions as mayor. If a similar tragedy occurred in our community, what would I do? How would I react? I realized I did not have the necessary tools.
Having the information in real time means being certain we have accurate knowledge of the risk our region is exposed to. I believe we are extrapolating when we say that means requesting information on every train that passes, the time at which it passes and in how many minutes it will be passing. I think that would constitute a risk because people might misuse that information. That is not what we are seeking. What we want is to be informed about the goods concerned, the quantity of goods and the level of risk they present in our region. That is what we are after in requesting information in real time.
As I said a little earlier, we especially want to be informed if the transported goods vary. There is no problem if they are the same goods as those that passed through last quarter or last year.
10:10 a.m.
President, Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities
No. I think my colleague has hit it right on the head. The concern I have and I think a lot of us have had, even at the SARM, is that if you start talking real-time and knowing ahead of time what's going through, it brings other risks into play and you have to be careful.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
All right.
In addition, one of the recommendations that the Transportation Safety Board made following the events in Lac-Mégantic was that railways consider options for bypassing more densely populated areas, that is to say urban areas. Do you think that is possible in practice?
I know that requests of that kind have been made in the case of Lac-Mégantic. However, that is not an option in Amqui, where the railway lines pass through the town. That is not what people want. That is what I was told when I went there.
Is it possible to do that? We have heard nothing from the government on this point.
10:10 a.m.
Mayor, Municipalité de Sainte-Catherine-de-Hatley, As an Individual
I am going to be frank on this question: I think it is very difficult.
We know that our communities, in many places, were built around the railways. It is hard to imagine how the railways could be made to bypass them.
Even in the extraordinary case of Lac-Mégantic, if you manage to establish a line that bypasses the city, that will be done in order to connect to plants and businesses. Since the rail line has to be built, perhaps it will diverted slightly.
However, I do not think it is a realistic idea to move other railway lines out of the communities. They are part of our history.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
In fact, the purpose of the recommendation by the Transportation Safety Board was more to have the railways consider options for other lines.
Whatever the case may be, I will not go any further on this point.
I have a question for Mr. Tweed and, unfortunately, I haven't been on the transport committee before, but I heard some great things about you when you were on the committee.
10:15 a.m.
An hon. member
That was hogwash.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Obviously, after Lac-Mégantic, some people were concerned about the short lines or some smaller companies that are not class I, saying that they're not fulfilling their safety issue, that safety is not first; that money, like profit, is more important than safety.
You're saying that your company has come up with moving at five miles an hour through communities. You're against—well, you never use just one operator and you're not leaving your trains unattended.
One of the questions I have is that you're implementing things that are more stringent or more safe than what the regulations are. Is that correct?
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
My question also is do you think that the safety regulations are too low? If your company is exceeding the safety regulation because you think it's safer, shouldn't other companies bring the safety level to a higher standard?
10:15 a.m.
President, OmniTRAX Canada
I think whenever you have regulations, obviously that's the standard that's set for the general population to deal with it.
In our situation, one of the reasons is isolation; there are times when quite often we need two crews on our train, so we would have four people, not necessarily all working at the same time, but now that we've increased our times and our delivery times, we can run with two and we've just made that decision as a company.
For us, it's about creating an atmosphere of safety among not only your employees but also the people that you travel through. As I said earlier, we made the decision to go to five miles an hour after discussions with the communities. They felt that they would be safer should something happen, and it didn't actually interfere with our deliveries.
