Bill C-33 (Historical)

Safer Railways Act

An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act

These amendments amend the Railway Safety Act to, among other things,
(a) improve the oversight capacity of the Department of Transport by, for example, requiring railway companies to obtain a safety-based railway operating certificate indicating compliance with regulatory requirements;
(b) strengthen that Department’s enforcement powers by introducing administrative monetary penalties and increasing court-enforced penalties;
(c) enhance the role of safety management systems by including a provision for a railway executive accountable for safety and a non-punitive reporting system for employees of railway companies;
(d) clarify the authority and responsibilities of the Minister of Transport with respect to railway matters; and
(e) expand regulation-making authorities and clarify the process for rule making by railway companies.

Safer Railways Act

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague from Western Arctic for having defended so well his proposals with respect to railway safety in Canada.

I will be using my speaking time on this matter to say that the City of Montreal is not an exception to the rule described earlier by my colleague, the transportation critic, and by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre. The City of Montreal, one of the oldest in Canada, has had the same experience: what was once very important now cuts through the city from one end to the other. We absolutely have to do two things: ensure that there is communication with the various areas of the city that are sometimes in the midst of repair and reconstruction work and also establish communication with the people responsible for the railways to ensure, for example, that there are safe crossings.

In this regard, I would like to point out that Luc Ferrandez, mayor of the borough of Plateau Mont-Royal, Alex Norris, councillor for the Mile End district of the borough, and his colleague Richard Ryan, Mile End councillor, cannot fathom that the City of Montreal to date has not even received a response to a letter sent at their request, because the city and the boroughs obviously must work together. Louis Roquet, as we all know, is the city manager, and he wrote to Denyse Nepveu, Director of Government Affairs for Canadian Pacific Railway, on August 20, 2010, regarding a railway interface and urban redevelopment project for the Saint-Viateur Est and Bellechasse sectors and the construction of a level crossing for pedestrians and cyclists. I will quote a portion of his letter.

Some steps have been taken informally by various departments of the city and boroughs to inform you of the main development projects on the outskirts of Plateau Mont-Royal and Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie as well as the challenges related to railway crossings. I hereby wish to confirm the importance of these development projects for the City of Montreal and also take the opportunity to continue discussions in order to find innovative solutions that will improve the interface.

They tried to explain to the railway company involved that there were 4,500 people living on one side of the railway tracks with their workplace on the other, as well as the metro station that their tax dollars paid for. These situations are always very complicated. Sometimes land will be freed up. The railways are moved. Outremont's railway yard is a good example. Construction will soon start on a group of buildings for the Université de Montréal's science and biosciences sector on this large site. It is being decontaminated. After a lot of hard work was done to convince the Conservatives that it was their responsibility to subsidize the decontamination because it was a rail site, the money came. Announcements are being made. However, it is an integral part of what is happening in Montreal. Whole sections of the city are working again. Good jobs with innovative businesses are being brought in, and problems from the 19th century are being dealt with.

Those in charge of the railways did not even bother to provide a response when called on by the public, by representatives of the borough and, as I just demonstrated, even by Montreal's city manager. Ms. Nepveu received this letter in August. It is now mid-December and there has still been no response. That is sad. How are these dynamic forces supposed to help their city move forward? If this antiquated equipment is useful for certain sectors of the city, then adaptation is key and the public needs to be given the means to cope with that. That is what today's bill is about.

We are putting certain important aspects of rail safety back on the table. My hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre reminded us that relocating these railways can be good for some cities. His city, Winnipeg, is a little like Montreal. It dates back to another time when the railway was connecting all of Canada. It only made sense to have the railway go right through the middle of town. However, what was once a blessing and a positive thing has in many cases become a nuisance today. Now we must deal with that.

It would be impossible to do the same thing immediately in every city. Yet this issue concerns every one of us here today. I am talking about the level crossing that should be our number one priority in Canada, because it would open up one of the most densely populated neighbourhoods in Canada: Mile End in Plateau-Mont-Royal, with its industrial park with 4,500 employees on one side and a metro station on the other.

The only thing preventing the 4,500 industrial park employees and the residents of Mile End from enjoying the full benefits of a metro station, which, as I said, was paid for using their tax dollars, is CP's obstinacy. The status quo is not safe. We are talking about safety around railways. The only legal pedestrian walkways available to get from one neighbourhood to the other are unsafe sidewalks that go under the tracks and are poorly lit, too narrow and really unpleasant, where there is excrement, graffiti and so on. Not many people use these walkways, and it is considered unsafe to walk there alone, especially for women.

According to a study carried out by the borough of Plateau-Mont-Royal, several hundred people a day illegally cross the railway between the two boroughs. During a peak period of just two hours, some 400 people were counted illegally crossing the railway between the two boroughs. This is extremely dangerous and these people could receive big fines if they were caught.

The number of these illegal crossings will only increase, because both sides of the railway are currently being redeveloped. In Mile End, 300,000 square metres of industrial space traditionally used by the clothing industry are being replaced by commercial and residential sites.There is a similar development in the Bellechasse de Rosemont sector.

So we can see that the urban fabric—no pun intended, since we are talking about the clothing industry—is starting to change. They want people to come live in the industrial sectors that never used to be attractive. They want to attract interesting businesses that would bring in a clientele that will support restaurants and businesses and that will buy and live in the neighbourhood. If the railway companies do not co-operate to provide safe crossings that can be used correctly by these people, railways will increasingly be seen as a hindrance to the harmonious future development of urban centres.

Like my colleague from Western Arctic who spoke earlier, I would very much be in favour of studying this bill for a number of reasons, and the main one is the ability to hear from Ms. Nepveu from Canadian Pacific Railway and from other officials. They do not even respond when they are questioned by cities like the city of Montreal.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Outremont for being generous in his treatment of this bill by recognizing the challenges that my city shares with his city of Montreal in terms of rail safety. In both of our cases, the railway was put through the very heart of our cities back when it was a logical and reasonable thing to do in 1882 or 1885. Now, in the context of rail safety, a real safety liability exists in both of our cities.

I note that many American cities are taking proactive steps to get the rail marshalling yards well out of the city for two reasons. First, as the freight has been forced from the rail onto trucks, often the most dangerous freight is still on the rails, that is chemicals, oil, et cetera. Spills do happen in the inner city of Montreal and the inner city of Winnipeg. Explosions do occur in both cities.

Would my colleague encourage the government to consider revitalizing the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act, which exists as legislation but which has been dormant for 15 or 20 years. The federal government used to pay 50% of the cost of rail relocation if a municipality applied to the federal government for assistance.

Would the member agree that we need to tear up the tracks in inner cities? Does he agree that the federal government should revitalize the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one need only look at the problem that I have just explained with regard to the city of Montreal to understand that the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act is a good idea. It should be revitalized and made a factor to which we can actually refer. As my colleague has explained, it is relatively dormant right now.

What is not dormant are the problems that are caused by the current situation of the tracks in a city like Montreal. Unfortunately, it often leads to people being killed. There was another case very recently of three young people killed on the tracks in the heart of Montreal. We have to deal with this.

A lot of companies are being served within the limits of that city right now that are having very toxic products brought to them through the centre of town. I hate the expression, but it seems to be applicable in this case. It is an accident looking for a place to happen. That place should be somewhere else other than in the centre of the most populous neighbourhoods.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Outremont.

My riding of Nickel Belt is mainly a rural area and, since the railway line crosses roads that do not have barriers, accidents occur frequently. I use the term “accidents” because these incidents are exactly that—accidents.

Does my colleague agree that, when a railway line crosses a road, lights and rail barriers should be mandatory at the level crossing?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, throughout Canada, there are some railway crossings in rural areas that are not marked at all. This is not safe. This is exactly the type of situation that could be covered by the legislation we are discussing. I completely agree with my friend and colleague from Nickel Belt. This type of situation should not be allowed to continue.

This is of concern to us as legislators because, even though it has become common to congratulate ourselves on the role the railway played in the establishment of Canada, we must understand that most of the communities were there well before the railway. It is therefore our responsibility to ensure that the railway companies implement the necessary resources. They will not do so unless we make them.

A fellow member recently tabled a bill for repairing the Quebec Bridge, a bridge that carries the railway. At one time, an agreement was reached with CN, which was supposed to be responsible for repairing the bridge; however CN did not respect the contract. I find this regrettable. This is not the first time we have witnessed such behaviour by the railway companies. If no one makes them take action, they will continue to get away with doing nothing.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-33 at second reading. The legislation is very important, given the history of accidents and safety concerns over the last large number of years in Canada. In fact, it has not only the support of the government but it also has the support of the Teamsters Canada union, representing workers in the railway industry.

The proposed amendments to the Railway Safety Act will encourage the rail companies to create and maintain a culture of safety and penalize rule-breakers by enabling the Government of Canada to do several things. One is to crack down on the rule-breakers with tough new monetary penalties and increased judicial penalties, and those have been indicated by some of the previous speakers. I believe it is a maximum fine of $1 million for a corporation and $500,000 for an individual. Other summary fines are $50,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a corporation. It is good to see there are some increased and fairly tough penalties.

Also there is a strengthening of the safety requirements for railway companies. I had indicated in the question earlier that there had been 10,000 train collisions and derailments over the last decade, which is an average of 3 a day. I found it astounding that it would be that high, but it has been documented so it must be true. On that basis alone, we need strengthened safety requirements for these railway companies.

It also creates whistleblower protection for employees who raise safety concerns. We are starting to see whistleblower protection emerge in a lot of areas nowadays. It is very important to protect information that should become public. In the past it never became public because employees were afraid to lose their jobs if they gave information out.

In addition, there is a requirement that each railway have an executive who is legally responsible for safety, a position in the railway to deal with safety issues.

The Railway Safety Act came into force in 1989. It gave Transport Canada the responsibility to oversee railway safety in Canada. In addition, it strengthened Transport Canada's regulatory oversight and enforcement capacities. These proposed amendments are consistent with the legislative framework of other transportation modes.

In terms of funding for this, the new amendments are supposed to be funded, for a total of $44 million over 5 years, to cover a national rail safety program based on detailed inspections, safety management system audits and enforcement action in cases of non-compliance.

As I had indicated, Teamsters Canada represents 4,000 rail workers at CP Rail. Those employees are involved in inspecting, monitoring and repairing tracks, bridges and structures on the network. The employees and their union are in support of the legislation. They sent out a press release earlier this year, indicating that it was time to plug the loopholes that allowed railways to put profit ahead of public safety. They are clearly on the side of the legislation, and that is always a good sign.

The proposed legislation calls for a tightening of rules, hiring more safety inspectors at Transport Canada. I also indicated the penalties involved. However, it is always a good sign when the government actually does consult on its legislative initiatives and presents a bill in the House, while taking into account the concerns of the union and of the workers who work at the enterprise. I commend it for doing that.

It has been mentioned that some of the derailments in the railway industry over the last number of years have involved explosions. I pulled information regarding the Mississauga situation a number of years ago, but I was particularly interested in the cases of train railway accidents involving loss of life.

The accident that caused the most loss of life in Canada was in my home province of Manitoba, the Dugald collision of 1947 that killed 35 people. The second biggest railway accident involving loss of life was the Hinton train collision on February 8, 1986, when 23 people were killed. I think many people remember the Hinton situation, which caused a lot of initiative into looking into the problem.

As one of the government members mentioned earlier, subsequent disasters have caused people to start to look at the whole issue of collisions.

It is possible for anyone who knows about railways to have foreseen this happening. In the 1960s, and the member for Winnipeg Centre will know this too, the roadbeds were not up to standard. There was a big push in those days to improve the roadbeds and put in ribbon steel as opposed to the short railway rails that were there before. Coupled with that was faster and longer trains. Then there was the move to take the cabooses from the trains.

We were running trains at much higher speeds through some areas where we had muskeg and so on. It was hard to maintain the roadbed and something had to give at the end of the day.

People in my party are very interested in seeing Canada invest in railways. We look to best practices elsewhere, for example in Japan and Europe, where trains are running at 200 miles an hour, which is a little faster than I would like to ride in a train, but I have ridden in them. They are even looking at 300 miles an hour.

How in the world will we be able to do something like that in Canada when we cannot even keep our trains on the track at the speeds they go right now, not to mention the issue that my friend from Winnipeg Centre has mentioned about relocating railway yards? That causes a lot of problems in his area and in my area of Elmwood—Transcona as well, with traffic being shut down for long periods of time, especially during the rush hour periods.

Before I finish I want to talk about my constituency. While the member for Winnipeg Centre has railway yards in his area, Transcona exists because of the railway industry.

On April 6, 1912, Transcona received its charter. In those days it was a heady period for Winnipeggers because the city had visions that it would become a second Chicago, Chicago of the north. The town of Transcona was named for the Transcontinental Railroad and cona for Lord Strathcona. It is one of the few places in Manitoba that does not owe its origins to agriculture, but to the railway. In 1907, 800 acres were acquired for the railway shops.

I want to mention that 2,000 people found jobs in the facility that planned to employ 5,000 people. There was work for trainmen, machinists, blacksmiths, boilermakers, electricians, pipefitters and upholsters. Over the years Transcona has had its ups and downs. Lately the numbers have fallen, unfortunately, to a low of perhaps only 700 people working in the Transcona area.

It is very shocking but this has all happened just in the last 20 to 30 years. It is a moving—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I will have to stop the hon. member there. I think we can accommodate a very brief question or comment and similarly timed response.

The hon. member for Nickel Belt.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member from Winnipeg's community is cut in half by railway tracks just like my community of Sudbury.

So, I would ask the hon. member if he believes that the government should help fund the removal of those tracks from downtown municipalities that want to have them moved.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, of course every situation is different. In the case of the member for Winnipeg Centre, it certainly seems like a very positive thing to do. I know he has talked about it before. This is not the first day that he came up with this idea. He has talked about it for many years now and has received a lot of support within the city of Winnipeg for it.

However, relocating the railway lines has to be done in conjunction with a lot of different things; that is, the construction of new types of roadbeds, faster trains, maybe electric-type trains and high-speed transportation, all the things that the transportation committee has been looking at for the last number of years and should continue—

The House resumed from December 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

When the House last dealt with this matter, the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona had three and a half minutes left for questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Churchill.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Churchill rail transportation is absolutely critical, given we have isolated communities along the Bay line leading up to Gillam and then Churchill that depend entirely on it for access to goods and services. The first nation of Pukatawagan also depends on rail transportation. We recognize that rail safety is absolutely critical.

Could my colleague expand on his views around the importance of the bill and of rail safety, given the history of rail transportation in our country?

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked an important question. I have taken the train from Thompson to Churchill on several occasions. There is a big problem there. Sometimes the train takes a long time to arrive because of problems with the railbed.

A viewer who was watching yesterday contacted my office regarding some information that I put on the record yesterday. I indicated that the largest train accident involving the loss of life was in Dugald, Manitoba in 1947. He pointed out that on December 8, 1942, in Almonte, Ontario, close to Ottawa, 36 people were killed in a train wreck. One of them was from the member for Churchill's riding, Dorothy Rafter from Gillam, Manitoba. Both of these disasters were equally devastating to the families of the victims.

This points to the fact that this report is long overdue. We have to establish tough rules for safety when it comes to railways, both passenger and freight trains. As the parliamentary secretary pointed out yesterday, when he introduced the bill, the passenger rail system in Canada carries some 72 million passengers a year and two-thirds of Canada's freight is still carried on the railway. With 72 million passengers riding the trains, we have to make certain that we do not have accidents like those that happened in Almonte and Dugald.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act.

Canada's railways are an intrinsic part of our country's history and nation-building experience. They continue to serve as a symbolic reminder of the great geographic distances brought together by Confederation.

In addition to the purely symbolic aspects of Canada's rail network, railways continue to provide a vital connection between the various regions of Canada, both in terms of passenger trips and cargo and freight shipments. Although the advent of modern transportation, such as air travel, have led to a reduction in the number of annual passenger train trips, this does not mean that the industry in Canada has become obsolete. In fact, rural and northern communities remain highly dependent on the availability of rail services.

That is why since my election, as a member of the great riding of Sudbury, I have been a vocal advocate for the expansion of rail lines and the upgrading of rail infrastructure in communities in northern Ontario. Specifically, I have been an ardent supporter of keeping the Huron Central Railway's operations alive and running.

Along with the help of northern Ontarian New Democrat members, including the members for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Nickel Belt, and Sault Ste. Marie, the NDP has successfully lobbied both the federal and provincial governments to infuse $33 million into infrastructure funds devoted to maintaining and improving rail connections in northern Ontario.

In addition to maintaining and upgrading northern and rural access to rail services, ensuring that rail travel is safe is paramount. Whether it is passengers on board trains themselves or pedestrians and motorists at railway crossings, it is crucial that Canada maintains an exemplary record in regard to safety.

Although the numbers of pedestrians and motorists in collisions at railway crossings have marginally declined since the early 1990s, general incidents have actually increased during this period. This does not mean that in implementing more stringent safety practices we should be ignoring crossing accidents. In 2006 crossing accidents accounted for approximately 23% of all railway accidents in Canada. Instead, we need to provide adequate provisions that ensure improved safety for motorists and pedestrians at crossings, while continuing to implement processes that will simultaneously reduce the more general forms of railway accidents, which include both collisions and derailments.

In spite of the marginally decreasing rates of crossing incidents, in 2003, 247 collisions were reported, resulting in deaths of 27 people and more than 50 serious injuries across the country. This rate has remained roughly stagnant over the past seven years, as from January to September 2010, there were 128 officially reported incidents resulting, unfortunately, in 16 fatalities and 15 serious injuries across Canada.

Let me recall a story from my riding of Sudbury as a demonstration of how the issue of rail safety can affect ordinary Canadians and their children.

Just last year a newborn baby was miraculously unharmed following a two-vehicle collision at the CN railway crossing on Maley Drive in Sudbury. The vehicle carrying the child was slowing to a stop for the flashing lights and control arm as the train was approaching the crossing. The vehicle was struck from behind and pushed across the tracks as the train approached. Thankfully, the vehicle cleared the crossing and was not struck by the train or the resulting collision would have caused significant injury, damage and possibly death.

This story demonstrates the necessity of implementing enhanced public awareness campaigns designed to ensure that Canadians are aware of potential dangers that meet them at railway crossings. Moreover, it demonstrates the overarching need for heightened safety standards which will provide protection to passengers, pedestrians, motorists and railway service staff, all of whom deserve to be protected from dangerous incidents, such as crossing accidents, collisions and derailments.

As of 2001, there were approximately 22,500 public railway crossings across Canada, with an equal number of private crossings falling under the jurisdiction of 2,500 different road authorities. In addition, 2001 statistics reveal that 145 of the 278 crossing collisions occurred at public crossings when there were automated flashing lights and warning bells.

This speaks to the fact that many Canadians are not taking the necessary precautions when approaching these crossings. Furthermore, the incident rate at these types of crossings also point to a deficiency in the way public railway crossings are managed. Clearly, the government needs to address the danger which these types of crossings can present by taking a dual approach encompassing more stringent regulations and an enhanced public awareness campaign.

Improving rail safety across Canada is integral for protecting passengers, pedestrians, motorists and railway staff respectively.

Therefore, the New Democratic Party will be supporting Bill C-33 at second reading in order to send it to committee for further debate and discussion.

Although the proposed amendment to the Railway Act is not perfect, the broad goal of improving railway safety is laudable. Our party welcomes the opportunity to discuss this bill at committee in order to improve specific aspects of the legislation which are lacking in its current incarnation.

The New Democratic Party is therefore committed to the goal of improving railway safety in Canada and looks forward to working with all parties to ensure that this bill provides the necessary safety protocols which are needed to protect Canadians across the country.

We also hope that this bill will continue to protect people such as those unfortunate two who were involved in the accident in Sudbury, and all people who have been involved in accidents in the past.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Sudbury on his wonderful speech here in the House today.

I know that there has been a lot of talk in his riding of Sudbury and my riding of Nickel Belt about the railway going right through downtown Sudbury. I would like to know if he thinks that the federal government should get back into assisting municipalities that request to have their railroads removed from downtown where they are causing traffic congestions.

Could the hon. member for Sudbury please give me his opinion on that?