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.

[Rob Smith, National Legislative Director, Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, Locomotive Engineers, Teamsters Canada]

Thank you, Phil and Bill.

First, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for giving us this opportunity to speak here today on behalf of the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, the TCRC.

My name is Rob Smith, and I have been recently elected to the position of national legislative director for the TCRC. I am also a qualified locomotive engineer and have worked in that capacity at Canadian Pacific Railway.

The TCRC represents approximately 10,000 members, which include conductors, rail traffic controllers, shopcraft workers, motor coach operators, customer service ambassadors, and locomotive engineers across Canada.

We are here today to briefly discuss Bill C-33, proposed amendments to the Railway Safety Act.

Our organization fully supports this bill as we feel it will address the safety and security concerns of our TCRC membership.

The TCRC welcomes the proposed bill as it will strengthen Transport Canada's enforcement powers to impose monetary penalties for safety and environmental contraventions by the railways. This is an essential element to ensure railway safety for all stakeholders.

The proposed bill also includes local railway companies that operate on federally regulated tracks governed under the rules of the Railway Safety Act. This also addresses an area of concern for our organization as we represent workers in these local railway companies.

The TCRC supports the proposed bill's addition of non-punitive internal reporting, the process for our membership, as well as additional accountability of the railways under the safety management systems.

In closing, I would like to again thank the committee for the opportunity to speak on behalf of our TCRC union members, who, as previously mentioned, are in full support of this bill. We urge you to support our position and have this bill passed in the interest of rail safety and operations throughout.

[William Brehl, President, Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, Maintenance of Way Employees Division, Teamsters Canada]

Thank you, Phil.

Members of the committee, Mr. Chairman, honoured guests, good afternoon.

This is not my strong suit, so bear with me. I'm a track monkey by trade, and public speaking isn't my strength.

My name is William Brehl, and I'm the elected national president of the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, Maintenance of Way Employees Division, the TCRCMWED. I'm also an active and participatory member of the Advisory Council on Rail Safety, better known as ACRS.

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to speak to Bill C-33, and more importantly, to the safety of railway operations in Canada.

The TCRCMWED represents roughly 4,000 Canadian men and women who inspect, maintain, repair, and build the track and structures of Canadian Pacific as well as those on almost two dozen short lines, including three that are owned and operated by CN.

For this reason, we are positioned like no one else to truly appreciate the importance of rail safety in this country. We are on the ground—in the trenches, so to speak—working and fighting to ensure safe rail infrastructure. We see its failings, and we can properly recommend solutions. We fight for rail safety as if our lives depend on it, because often they do.

Here it is not even two months into 2011, and the Transportation Safety Board statistics show that over 106 derailments have been reported so far this year. At least 33 of them involved dangerous commodities. Thirty-one crossing accidents have been reported to the TSB over the last six weeks, and Canadian railway operating rule violations such as exceeding or operating without authority, which basically means that a train has entered into unprotected track—the leading cause of on-track collisions—number in excess of 20 reported.

Once you stop and actually look at the numbers, no matter what spin the railroads put on their safety records, you realize the potential for disaster that is lurking out there.

As Teamsters, as railroaders, and as Canadian citizens, we welcome any and all improvements to the regulations, which are designed to protect our membership and the country as a whole from the hazards of unsafe railway operations.

They can and they must run safe, profitable lines. We must ensure through proper regulations and enforced compliance that the railroads put safety as the first priority instead of simply depending on good luck and gravity to keep their trains on the track.

Therefore, we support Bill C-33. We have also submitted four amendments, which we see as enhancing the bill and allowing it to be more effective. One of them, non-punitive reporting, I would like to briefly speak on now.

To truly get a handle on the root cause of accidents or systemic failures, you need accurate, comprehensive data. Breakdowns in procedure, as well as trends, may not be recognized if the information is lacking. That's why the reporting of all incidents is a necessity.

Railroads have long fostered a climate of fear—which we've talked about in this room quite a bit today—amongst their workers. As a 30-year CP maintenance of way employee, I can attest that this is nothing new. Rules violations are disciplined heavily. One accidental rules violation could lead to your dismissal. But the fear within our membership is not only of reporting their own errors. Often it is of reporting other contraventions to anyone beyond their immediate supervisor, even if they believe that their supervisor is covering the contraventions up. The optics within our ranks are that if you report something the railroad doesn't want reported, you will be punished. Punishments can range from less than desirable work assignments right up to discipline and/or dismissal.

As long as that underlying fear is there, we do not believe that proposed subparagraph 47.1(1)(a)(iv) will achieve the policy objective. We firmly believe that more is needed. Not only is non-punitive reporting a necessity to ensure the violations are getting reported, but we must have confidential reporting as well to alleviate these fears of hidden reprisals. We believe we should add to proposed section 47.1 our amendment to allow complaints directly to Transport Canada Rail Safety.

In the end, there is no downside to confidential third-party reporting, especially when you look at the positive benefits. After all, if the goal is to gather information to assist in the enforcement of the regulations as well as for the identification of problems, then it just makes sense to remove all of the roadblocks.

Allow the real railroaders the freedom and the security to honestly speak without fear of punishment or reprisal. That alone will move the issue of rail safety miles closer to resolution.

I'd like to thank the committee for their work on our behalf, and also for allowing me the chance to voice the concerns of our membership.

Thank you.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you.

I would carry on with Mr. Trost's question. The review of the RSA recommended that the rail traffic controllers be required to be physically in Canada so they can be inspected. Would you like to see that provision in Bill C-33?

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

My other question is about the planned changes in Bill C-33. There are highlights, but I don't understand them at all. Why amend the act? Are things really that bad? Why change the regulations? Are some of its components upsetting people?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

My questions are going to be focused only from the perspective of women and men, workers or employees.

I have heard many concerns from employees that they operate under a climate of fear, which would make them hesitant to use any non-punitive internal reporting. Shouldn't there be a clause or provisions in Bill C-33 to allow them to report, or make these non-punitive reports directly to Transport Canada?

[Luc Bourdon]

Mr. Guimond, I could say that they can do it now if they want, despite Bill C-33. Canadian Pacific and Canadian National could announce at any time that they are changing the contract made with the other and that this is how they are going to do it. The bill makes no provision for that.

[Luc Bourdon]

Sure. Shortlines under provincial jurisdiction that operate only on provincial tracks will be completely excluded from Bill C-33. They won't be affected.

[Luc Bourdon]

I have two things I can say. First, no railway under strictly federal jurisdiction that does not operate on federal tracks will be subject to Bill C-33.

But your shortlines, which only operate on tracks under federal jurisdiction, will in no way be subject to it. Only railways under provincial jurisdiction that operate on federal tracks will be subject to Bill C-33.

The reason they won't be exempted…

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

What would it protect? CP and CN are the ones that will maintain the tracks, and it's their responsibility to comply with Bill C-33. What protection does TransLink have if they try to manipulate that or try to monopolize the situation so that tomorrow the taxpayers and the commuters, particularly from the Mission area into the downtown core, will not be in jeopardy?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

You mentioned West Coast Express, so let me go to West Coast Express. They have 12 people who run their customer interface, like parking-related services. Today, if we look at their situation, the maintenance of the train is done by VIA Rail in that situation. The tracks are done by CP, and CP is also contracted to move trains. So to comply, we all know and you say they already have that provision in there that they can be exempted, but with this oversight in Bill C-33, where TransLink will have to hire more consultants, have you estimated how much it would additionally cost the taxpayers in British Columbia, and particularly in the--

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

But we have a proven record that these transit authorities, whether it's TransLink.... And they have accountability as well, on a different level of government, or a different order of government.

On the one hand, you are very happy with their past safety record. On the other hand, we know they're already accountable to government on a different order. So why would we again like to put them into a situation that would put more burden on them by bringing in Bill C-33?

[Luc Bourdon]

First of all, I'd like to say that the three urban transit authorities we're dealing with, which are currently under provincial jurisdiction, are very safe companies, and they're definitely not operating in an unsafe manner.

However, it all goes through the railway operating certificate. So you can't see that as a permit that each railway will need to obtain in order to operate on federal track. Most of what may be required in the railway operating certificate these commuter railways already have in place.

The second thing that is really important to note is that in Bill C-33, under proposed section 12, concerning the railway operating certificate, there is a provision under proposed paragraph 17.9(1)(c) that allows the Governor in Council to exempt some persons from the railway operating certificate. So there was already provision at the time we were going to do the regulation to exempt some class of persons.

I honestly would be pretty uncomfortable right now to decide who should or should not require an ROC based on their current safety record. I don't think that should be perceived as a reward, that if you have a good safety record you don't need an ROC.

The legislation, the way it is now, already has some provisions that would allow them to be exempt at the time we do the regulation.

[Luc Bourdon, Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thanks to the members for having us here today again.

The minister, on Tuesday, touched on some of the key issues in the bill, and I'd like to take about four or five minutes to let you know what we've done with all the recommendations that were generated by the Railway Safety Act review panel—the 56 of them—and the 14 that were generated by SCOTIC.

We acted on them as soon as we got them, and the first thing that Rail Safety did was create an advisory council on railway safety with the companies, Transport Canada, and the Canadian Labour Congress. That was a recommendation of the Railway Safety Act review panel. So far we have had six meetings since that committee was put together, and that has proven to be very effective to communicate with all of our stakeholders. On the committee we have Transport Canada, the unions, the companies, the shippers, the suppliers, the provinces, the municipalities, as well as some observers.

We also created a Railway Safety Act review steering committee with the industry, Transport Canada, again, and the Canadian Labour Congress. The first thing we did was look at all the recommendations that did not require legislative amendments. They were divided among six working groups. All the working groups were also composed of union members from each of the railway unions, management, and the railway.

Just to give you an idea of what these committees have been able to achieve, one of the first committees we put together was on a safety management system. There have been several recommendations in the Railway Safety Act review and some recommendations as well done by SCOTIC. One of the recommendations that was provided by SCOTIC was to create a better tool to assist our stakeholders and Transport Canada to better manage rail safety. Carla has a copy of what has been published, which has been given to all our stakeholders. So we did publish some guidelines that are being used right now by all our stakeholders to help us with the implementation of a safety management system.

There were also some recommendations by SCOTIC for a non-punitive provision, which is in Bill C-33, as well as better employee involvement, which is also covered in the bill.

There is also one chapter dealing with information collection, analysis, and dissemination. We put together a working group, again, with unions, the railway, and Transport Canada, and it came up with some indicators that from now on will be shared between industry and the regulator through a data portal. We were fortunate to get about $2.3 million to enable the technology to get that done for us.

We also created a third working group—operation and proximity—that deals, among other topics, with fatigue, which was also a recommendation of SCOTIC . We recently published some fatigue guidelines to help train crews deal with fatigue-related issues. That was done, again, in cooperation with unions and management as well as with Dr. Patrick Sherry from the University of Denver, who helped us with this.

Also, a recommendation from SCOTIC was to enhance training. The industry has filed new rules with us for enhanced training for safety-sensitive positions.

Terms of closing crossings was also in the recommendations. We're dealing with industry to come up with a list of crossings that can be closed.

Regarding Operation Lifesaver, two of the members have raised some issues with respect to crossings and trespassing. We've added five engineers to deal with crossings, and $28 million was added to enhance crossings. We also added five outreach coordinators to assist us with education and awareness with respect to crossings and trespassing.

As for innovation and technology, there were a series of recommendations. Some came from the committee, others, from the panel. We created a new structure for managing these recommendations.

The working group, made up of transport company unions, has generated 25 new recommendations that have been scheduled to be carried out over the next few years. We were lucky to receive an additional $5.3 million to invest in technology. We also formed alliances with some universities and some other countries that share the same concerns as we do.

The fifth working group looked at environmental protection. Among other things, it focused on the best emergency measures for products that are not considered dangerous goods, but that may be dangerous for the environment. And the group made suggestions to us. Also, there are provisions in Bill C-33 that require railways to provide Transport Canada with environmental plans that will be checked.

The last working group focused on the process for establishing rules. Once again, these are the same stakeholders who are at the table, and they worked on creating a better methodology for establishing rules, a better participation of unions and better existing rules.

I came before this committee about three years ago and talked about some new technology we had acquired, the track assessment vehicle, that would help us enhance our capacity to do track inspection. We got two more of those vehicles. Right now we have up to five vehicles. So we're better equipped than we've ever been in the past to perform track inspection.

I just want to make sure you fully understand that all the recommendations in these two reports were not left on the shelf to collect dust. Most of the recommendations have been addressed.

In closing, I'd like to emphasize, on behalf of everybody in Rail Safety at Transport Canada, that we firmly believe that although we've received many tools to do a better job, Bill C-33 is probably the last one we would need in order to have a full tool kit.

On that, I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 46.

Before I go into the orders of the day, I just want to bring the committee up to speed about next Tuesday. We have secured the 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. timeframe. You will be getting a notice, if you haven't already received it. We're waiting for a response from the minister on our request to appear. In the meantime, we have confirmed that we will proceed with the aviation safety and security aspect of our discussions. CATSA and CUPE have confirmed their attendance for that timeframe. You'll get a notice in the mail. We will proceed with normal business again at 3:30 that afternoon.

Also, just for the advice of the committee, joining us today we have a group from the Carleton University School of Journalism and Communication. They're sitting at the back.

We welcome you, and hopefully you'll enjoy your day.

With that, we will move to the orders of the day pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, December 8, 2010, Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.

When we left the last meeting we had department officials and the minister. The department officials have been invited back. Joining us today is Luc Bourdon, director general of rail safety, and Carla White-Taylor, director, rail safety secretariat.

I understand you have an opening comment you'd like to start with, and then we'll move to questions and answers.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister and officials, for attending today.

In particular, I want to let you know, Minister, that all the committee members, including Mr. McCallum and Monsieur Guimond and Mr. Bevington, from all parties, have agreed to have extra meetings so we can make sure all regular meetings are going to be for Bill C-33 until it's put through. I want to let you know that all members have agreed to do that, so that we have extra sittings. I think that shows cooperation on the part of all parties.

I don't want to pick on anyone, but I understand the mayor of Pickering has approached you several times in relation to this particular bill. I understand other mayors around the GTA in particular are very interested in this bill. I was wondering if you could—not give us specifics on the conversations, because I understand some are in the hundreds or so, as far as the mayor of Pickering and the department are concerned—give us information on general terms, general information, general input by mayors in that region, particularly by politicians in the GTA and how they feel about this particular act.