Bill S-4 (Historical)

Safer Railways Act

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

The amendments amend the Railway Safety Act to, among other things,
(a) improve the oversight capacity of the Department of Transport by, for example, requiring 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 fines;
(c) enhance the role of safety management systems by including a provision for a railway executive who is 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 powers, including in respect of environmental management, and clarify the process for rule making by railway companies.

Safer Railways Act

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with its far flung population centres, Canada has been compared to a string of beads and an island archipelago. This is as true today as it was 176 years ago when the first railway was built in our great country.

Railways are not just a means of transportation; they tie us together at a much deeper level. Without them, Confederation would not have been possible. One of the few things that the separate colonial governments could agree on when they founded our nation was the desire to be linked and to thrive through the railways.

The Maritimes only joined Confederation because the building of an intercolonial railway was promised. Likewise, British Columbia only acceded because it was promised it would be connected to the rest of the country through a transcontinental railway.

The fathers of Confederation grasped the immense importance of railways for such a vast and sparsely populated country. This is why Canadian governments in the past have been supportive and involved in railways since the inception of our nation.

Depending on the types and location of railway projects, different approaches were taken by the government. The Intercolonial Railway was built under direct government supervision. Other railway links were established because loans were underwritten by the state. The most famous and important of the nation shaping railway projects was the Canadian Pacific Railway. It was made possible by private and public funds, as well as through massive land grants in the Canadian Prairies. The railway, the longest in the world at the time, was completed in 1885 to great fanfare.

Creating a coast to coast railway connection was not only an economic imperative to string the provinces together, but it was also an act of nation building. The construction of railways created the economic basis for large parts of Canada. It also made our nation a diverse and striving one by bringing in immigrants from around the world as railway workers. Fifteen thousand Chinese workers built the most challenging and dangerous portion of the Canadian Pacific Railway.

Long after the transcontinental links were built, a strong sense of federal responsibility remained, especially when times were tough. When the economy was down and the supply of immigrants had dried up during World War I, the government salvaged the assets of the three railways and merged them to form the Canadian National Railway.

After World War II, the slow decline of passenger railway services began. The large duopolists did not have a serious interest in passenger lines, as they focused on freight. Again, the federal government acted to protect national interests. Instead of letting passenger services disappear altogether under private sector management, VIA Rail was established in 1978 to ensure that passenger services would continue to connect Canadian cities. Yes, it was important to celebrate that year.

Unfortunately, more recent federal governments have tended to ignore the vast potential that rail services, both for freight and passengers, hold for our great country. Under the Conservatives, railways were largely deregulated in 1987. Railway lines that were built to serve public needs with public money and land were now allowed to be abandoned by rail companies. As a result, Canada has lost over 10,000 kilometres in active rail lines since then, a loss of almost 20% of our rail network.

Another deliberate setback took place in 1995 when the Liberals and the Liberal government privatized the Canadian National Railway. In order to cash in on the coveted national asset, the government at the time sold CN on the stock market.

The benefits of railways are clear. Trains are substantially more fuel efficient than motor vehicles when it comes to moving passengers and cargo. By electrifying railway lines, greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced.

Despite the shortcomings of federal safety regulations, travelling by train is roughly five times safer than using a car and it is still the main mode of transportation for our Canadian goods, with 70% of all freight in our country shipped by rail. Rail lines provide crucial links to our southern neighbour and its important markets for Canadian companies around the world.

In large urban centres, commuting by rail is vital in getting millions of Canadians to their workplace every day. VIA Rail connects our country's most vibrant cities, carrying more than four million passengers a year, and it can do a lot more if it has government support.

Despite the impressive numbers, the picture is not so rosy. What used to be our nation's prime mode of transportation and springboard for our national aspirations have been relegated to a back-row seat. The changes that the advent of air travel and cars have brought about cannot be denied or reversed. However, we are foolish to believe that we are helpless and that the only modern way to move goods and people is through airports and highways. Railways can—

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. There are a number of conversations commencing in the chamber. The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina has the floor. I would ask members who wish to carry on conversations to do so in their respective lobbies.

The hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, railways can be competitive and highly successful commercially. CN, for example, made billions of dollars last year. It takes the right government mindset and political will.

Countries in Europe and Asia, and lately even the United States, are showing us how efficient, fast and profitable railway passenger services can be. Instead of high-speed trains that run on their tracks, Canadians are stuck with slow diesel trains that roll on bumpy tracks that are owned by the monopolized CN and CP Rail. It is their tracks, their train-controlled centres and their trains that take precedence over any passenger train, a situation unheard of in countries like France or China.

Via Rail is forced to lease essentially all its tracks, as it owns close to none of them. By allowing the big private rail companies to abandon Canadian rail lines, both the passenger and freight customers, they are freer than ever to expand elsewhere, which means the lucrative U.S. market. CN has gobbled up various railway companies with its network stretching all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. CPR has made similar moves, purchasing thousands of kilometres of tracks in the United States to the tune of several billion dollars. No wonder Canadians are left behind.

The lack of attention from both large rail companies results in underserved rural areas with farmers who cannot ship their agricultural products, logging and mining companies that become uncompetitive as they cannot ship on time and car manufacturers whose sophisticated supply systems are upended by dismal rail services.

I have met many of the farm lobbying groups, whether it is Pulse Canada, Canadian Soybean or the wheat farmers. They have all said that they are losing millions of dollars because of unreliable rail service. Unfortunately the Conservative government has only made token efforts so far to address these issues.

To make the situation worse, passengers in Canada are left out in the cold as well. The government is slashing funding to VIA Rail by $200 million this year, according to its estimates. Crucial investment in overhauling aging cars and engines, as well as safety upgrades, cannot be made. The combined neglect of railway companies and the federal government has reached an unprecedented level of under-investment across the country.

A crucial link from Vancouver Island, and my colleagues know this very well, was recently shut down as it had become unsafe after years of pent-up maintenance. Likewise, the rail connection between Montreal and the Gaspé has been severed, leaving passengers stranded and a whole region cut off after 150 years of rail history.

The overall service levels have decreased so much that various train connections in 2012 are slower than they were in the early 1990s. The connecting Winnipeg-Churchill train has seen its schedule lengthened by about five hours since 2008. The Halifax-Montreal train is now almost three hours slower than it was in 1993. Not surprisingly, ridership has gone down from 279,000 in 1996 to 127,000 in 2010, which is more than half.

Even the service on the connection between Canada's two largest cities, Montreal and Toronto, is slower than it was in 1992. Back then the train ride was just below four hours. Now it takes close to five hours.

The current state of Canada's railways is made even harder because of government policies that favour air and road travel over trail. For the financial year of 2009-10, all levels of government, taken together, spent $1.2 billion on subsidizing air travel. This number is more than twice the amount that was spent in 2001-02. Likewise, government support for marine transportation increased by 90% over the same time span, now reaching $1.8 billion.

What about roads? They are our government's pet projects. All levels of government spend close to $30 billion a year on highways and roads. Again, this amount has more than doubled since 2001.

Judging by the public discourse, transit is the ugly duckling when it comes to government support, but not quite. With almost $6 billion in government support, that is still light years away from passenger rail services. The rail service is treated as an afterthought. This is evidenced by the dismal amount of $430 million in government spending in 2009 and 2010. That is only a small increase of 12% over the 2001 levels, barely enough to keep up with inflation.

The new federal budget will put an X through that number, making it even lower, and more than a third of VIA Rail support is expected to be chopped, along with cuts to overall rail safety programs. Without a doubt, rail transport needs to be put on the national agenda again, not just for economic reasons but also to improve the safety and give Canadians the confidence they need when they make their travel arrangements.

As the transport critic, I welcome Bill S-4 and the step forward that it represents for Canada's rail safety. I am joined in my appreciation of the safer railways act by my New Democrat colleagues. However, it can be argued that it has taken far too long to get this bill to the current stage. By the time the bill receives royal assent, it will be over five years since an independent panel made 56 recommendations to Transport Canada on how to make our railways safer. It is in the interest of all Canadians to make the bill a reality as soon as possible.

The tragic VIA Rail collision in Burlington last month shows that we need to do more to prevent future derailments, fatalities and injuries. It is time for the Conservative government to take action and satisfy long-standing demands from the independent experts on the Transportation Safety Board. The agency has been calling for voice recorders on locomotives since 2003 and they are still not in place. More talk is not what we need; it is action that we want. Likewise, the Transportation Safety Board has been calling for automatic safety back-up measures, in the case of equipment failure or human error, to prevent tragic accidents.

In 2008 the United States acted after a horrendous crash in California. By making positive train control mandatory, the U.S. is ensuring that an automatic safety system is in place, just like the one the Transportation Safety Board has been requesting for more than 10 years. Seeing the life-saving value of this technology, the experts on the board have refined the cause and have specifically demanded the introduction of mandatory positive train control in Canada since 2010.

The New Democrats urge the Conservative government to heed the Transportation Safety Board's request to make our railways safer for passengers and rail workers alike. To enable VIA Rail to make its operations safer and to improve service levels, we also call on the federal government to reverse its funding cuts. Only by giving VIA Rail the financial resources that it needs, can we increase safety levels and restore confidence of Canadian confidence in rail travel.

Our demands are clear. We need Bill S-4 to pass. We want to ensure the Transportation Safety Board's recommendation for voice recorders and positive train controls are implemented as soon as possible. We have to make passenger rail services safe and reliable again by restoring VIA Rail's funding. The time to act is now. By taking those measures, we continue to build on the legacy that was accomplished by our predecessors. Without the vision of this honourable House, that famous last spike would not have been driven into the transcontinental railway in 1885. Let us have similar foresight in making railways a national priority again.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made comments about the tragic train accident in my riding of Burlington and I appreciate her thoughts on the matter.

The NDP has indicated its support on moving this bill forward in a timely manner, getting it to committee and back to the House. Are there amendments we should be aware of that the NDP will be putting forward to the bill as it is presently written?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as you have heard from what I said earlier, this side of the House would prefer to see detailed regulations in the bill mandating positive train control systems and voice recording systems in locomotive cabs. However, we are not going to put that forward as an amendment because I detect an unwillingness at this point by the government to support it. That is unfortunate, because by 2015 the United States will make it mandatory for all trains to have positive train control systems and a large number of our trains travel to the United States. As I said earlier, if we made that an amendment, my guess is that the Conservative government would not support it and it would delay the bill.

Since the member is from an area where there was a tragic accident, I want to point out that in 2010 the Transportation Safety Board recommended making positive train control systems mandatory. I hope the government will act on that recommendation as soon as possible.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I might point out to my colleague that earlier today, I asked the minister about the possibility of amendments. He said he would be open to possible changes at committee. I do not know how serious that is compared with what she might have heard, but I thought I would put it on the record.

My question has to do with her comments about speed rail in Canada being bad versus speed rail in other places like Europe, China and the U.S. being good. She seems to attribute that difference mainly to the fact that VIA Rail does not have its own tracks and has to use the tracks of CN and CP, whereas in those other places they have their own tracks.

What is her solution? If the idea is to build new tracks across Canada for VIA Rail, that would cost billions or tens of billions of dollars. I agree with her. I have travelled on the fast trains in some of those places and they are far better than what we have in Canada. What is her solution to this problem?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are several areas where there can be improvements. Regulations or legislation to ensure there are service agreements between the customers of CN and CP would help freight services. It would ensure that deliveries were made on time. Train arrival times would be given in advance, for example, to farmers, the logging industry and coal companies. That would be one solution.

The second solution, using the Quebec City to Windsor rail line as an example, is we could certainly upgrade the tracks. There is no reason not to have high-speed rail through this corridor. We could upgrade the VIA Rail services incrementally to make sure that eventually there is a high-speed electric train in this corridor.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina. She has been a strong and relentless voice for building safety and infrastructure in the rail industry. I also congratulate the Minister of Transport on Bill S-4. It is a good effort. It is good to see parties working together to build this good legislation.

Previous Conservative and Liberal governments have allowed or even caused the decline and degradation of Canadian freight and passenger rail. For example, in my riding we have lost passenger rail on the north shore of Lake Superior through Thunder Bay.

I have a provocative question for the member for Trinity—Spadina. How can we work effectively with the Conservatives to build rail infrastructure across Canada, or will we have to wait until we form government in four years?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. Canada has lost over 10,000 kilometres of active rail lines since the deregulation of railways in 1987. The money needed to improve our networks is mostly siphoned off by CN and CP. First a Conservative government and then a Liberal government privatized CNR in 1995. It was sold on the stock market. VIA Rail was left holding the bag. Unfortunately, until we change our policies and regulations, or are willing to invest some money into electric trains and repairing the tracks, I am afraid the slow decline is going to continue.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague from Trinity—Spadina once again on her wonderful speech.

But, why is it important to ensure rail safety? For one thing, we must remember that, historically, the railway united Canada. So it is very important in uniting Canada, from east to west, and in encouraging the economic development of many communities that would really like to have more rail services, particularly from VIA Rail.

In my riding in the Eastern Townships, for instance, Sherbrooke is no longer served by VIA Rail. Although some routes are being used less and less, other sectors want more services—high-quality, safe services.

In my colleague's opinion, for Canada's unity, for the safety and economic development of the regions, why is it so important to emphasize rail development?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, travelling by rail is safe, comfortable, fast, reliable and environmentally sustainable. If we look at all different modes of transportation, rail is by far the best way to go. With modern technology it can be extremely fast.

It is tragic that we see the technology is there, but the government is unwilling to regulate it. For example, in Quebec there was a tragic derailment in 2010. The Transportation Safety Board recently reported that the positive train control system would have made a difference and slowed down the train. The train would not have derailed and people would not have been injured.

That is one of the ways to keep train travel even safer than it is now.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Bourassa and on behalf of my party, I would like to start by commending the work that was done in the other chamber. Obviously, we all remember that this bill is a revival of former Bill C-33 and that a good job was done with the amendments. People did a great job.

At the time, the hon. member for Markham—Unionville was on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and the work done there was quite outstanding. Since the work was well done and everyone decided to work together to ensure everyone's safety, the bill deserves our support today. We most definitely have to send it to committee as soon as possible in order to look into certain aspects and see if we have to make some improvements.

In the other chamber, Senator Mercer, together with the other hon. senators—from both the government side and our side—have already done a thorough job. All players had a chance to speak their minds. We realize that there is already a lot of support and a series of amendments has been moved as a result of the work accomplished on the former bill.

It is only fair to say that we must support this bill and find the proper way to do so. Obviously, pulling on a flower does not make it grow faster. However, we certainly want to make sure that things will be done as quickly as possible. The bill has to be sent to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities so that we can do a proper job and quickly address the issue to determine whether adjustments have to be made. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario will agree with me in saying that Bill S-4 is a good bill and that, as a result, we should support it, given the significant work that was done in the other chamber.

I want to explain to the thousands of television viewers watching us today what Bill S-4 is all about. It is intended, of course, to amend the Railway Safety Act, specifically to improve the oversight capacity of the Department of Transport, to strengthen that department’s enforcement powers by introducing administrative monetary penalties and increasing fines, to enhance the role of safety management systems by including a provision for a railway executive who is accountable for safety—and the word accountable is important here—and to implement a confidential non-punitive reporting system for employees of railway companies. It also seeks to clarify the authority and responsibilities of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities with respect to railway matters.

It is important that, as the representative of the people, the minister have those powers and, clearly, the regulation-making powers must be expanded, including those dealing with environmental management. The process for rule making by railway companies must also be clarified.

What I find interesting about this approach is that, for the most part, all partners support this bill. The unions, as well as the Railway Association of Canada, are generally in favour of this legislation. Naturally, the RAC is not in a position to say at this time if the industry will support the bill without reservation because, after appearing twice before the parliamentary committee that studied Bill S-4 and Bill S-33—the predecessor to the bill we are studying today—the RAC had proposed seven amendments to improve safety, all of which were rejected.

It is fair to say that our system is quite safe, but we need to make the necessary changes to make it safer. Naturally, I acknowledge my colleague from Burlington, who had that tragic accident in his riding. We will let the investigation take its course, but we must ensure that we develop the necessary tools to guarantee safety.

I truly believe in rail transportation. We all know that this country has been built on that vision. It is a great way to bridge rural and urban Canada. However, I think we need to provide better tools to make sure that citizens from coast to coast to coast feel that they are first-class citizens with that mode of transportation. Bill S-4 would provide that and some problems would be prevented.

Let us take a look at infrastructure. Certain areas may have some situations, such as the one my colleague for Trinity—Spadina spoke about in eastern Quebec. Of course, we would promote specific programs on infrastructure to make sure that we have the capacity for the track to be accurate. We must make sure we are providing the service which, in certain areas, is an essential service. It is important that we take a look at that.

We would not play with security. At times it might be used in partisan ways, such as on Bill C-10, but for the railway I think it is a non-partisan issue. I think that all sides believe in security.

However, this bill needs to be quickly sent to committee. I think that we need to look further at the bill. My colleague suggested that the Canadian Urban Transit Association, in approaching the committee, was concerned about how the provisions of the bill would affect the operation of light rail transit that operates on federally regulated rail lines. There are only a few examples of this in the country. For example, the Lakeshore line of GO Transit moves an incredibly large number of people each day. Therefore, the committee concerns must be twofold.

First, overly large increases to the administrative burden on authorities like GO Transit would negatively impact ridership and fares. However, considering the volume of riders and the number of level crossings on the Lakeshore line, it is also important that the Government of Canada ensure that these trains operate with the highest level of safety possible.

Second, the Railway Association of Canada made a request that the bill be amended by adding to subclause 24(1) the following:

Respecting notices to be given to railways regarding any proposed local plan of subdivision or zoning by-law or proposed amendment thereof in respect of land that is located within 300 meters of a line of railway or railway yard.

This amendment would require municipalities to notify and consult the railway if they made any zoning amendments on land within 300 metres of a railway or railway yard. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities was understandably concerned about this measure. At the heart of its concern was this requirement for communities to inform railways of changes from adjacent land to proximate land. As it was explained to the committee, municipalities across Canada already inform railways when their zoning plans affect land adjacent to the railway's right of way.

The FCM's objection to this change was twofold. Primarily there is a concern that the 300 metre limit is overly burdensome on municipalities that already inform railways of land use changes on property adjacent to the rail line. There is also a concern about the federal government mandating a provision that directly interferes with how provinces legislate municipal power and zoning laws. As these laws and powers vary drastically across the provinces, it would be inappropriate for the federal government to simply override them all. It could also create needless red tape for the local transit association.

These are just some of the issues that the transport committee could consider taking up at its hearings. However, I think everyone has done a great job in the other chamber.

I believe it is a good idea to pass this bill very quickly in order to provide the minister and the department with the necessary authority to enact regulations, and to ensure better safety and greater consistency of the regulations. Partners must be heard quickly one last time by the Standing Committee on Transport to ensure, as we all wish, better safety for all Canadians.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments on the bill. Members will note that a couple of my colleagues have commended the minister of transport for consulting relevant persons in development of the bill.

One aspect that seems to be lacking in the tabling of the bill is an anticipated regulatory agenda and timeline for the regulations to be implemented, which is merely an enabling statute. Also missing is the tabling of an enforcement and compliance policy. Why do I raise that? As a former environmental enforcer, I know that the proof is in the pudding. What is most important is the commitment of the government to actually enforce these improved safety standards.

Over a 20 year period, the Transportation Safety Board investigation reports have cited serious continuous operating regulatory enforcement deficiencies, overreliance and outdated, ineffective inspection techniques, inadequate emergency response training and supervision.

Would the hon. member support a call for the tabling of a regulatory agenda and timeline, an enforcement and compliance strategy, and a commitment to actually enforce this new law?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question. I was a minister in another government and the important thing is to be pragmatic and find a way to put some teeth in the regulations.

My colleague asked some good questions. They are the types of questions we can ask the minister and all the stakeholders directly in committee in order to make the bill effective. This is not just lip service. We want to reduce the red tape and have the necessary tools to ensure greater safety, including environmental safety.

Earlier I was talking about municipal zoning. We have to respect the jurisdictions. These are the types of questions we can ask in order to assess the feasibility of this bill and ensure that it is not just wishful thinking, that it could indeed work. Given the work that has already been done in the other place and all the amendments that were proposed and approved regarding the previous Bill C-33, this is a good bill, but there is always room for improvement. We will ask questions, but not to the detriment of passing this bill.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member on his excellent speech. I have a question for him. I was under the impression that the minister might accept amendments, but the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina suggested otherwise.

It is true that in the previous parliament, a minority government at the time, the transport committee accepted a number of amendments. Given the diversity of views on the likelihood of the majority government now accepting amendments, is my colleague leaning on the side of optimism or pessimism with respect to the question?