Bill C-52 (Historical)

Safe and Accountable Rail Act

An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act

This enactment amends the Canada Transportation Act to strengthen the liability and compensation regime for federally regulated railway companies by establishing minimum insurance levels for railway companies and a supplementary, shipper-financed compensation fund to cover damages resulting from railway accidents involving the transportation of certain dangerous goods.
Among other things, the amendments
(a) establish minimum insurance levels for freight railway operations based on the type and volume of goods that are transported;
(b) require the holder of a certificate of fitness to maintain the liability insurance coverage required by that Act, and to notify the Canadian Transportation Agency without delay if its insurance coverage is affected;
(c) establish that a railway company is liable, without proof of fault or negligence, subject to certain defences, for losses, damages, costs and expenses resulting from a railway accident involving crude oil or other designated goods, up to the level of the company’s minimum liability insurance coverage; and
(d) establish a compensation fund in the Accounts of Canada, financed by levies on shippers, to cover the losses, damages, costs and expenses resulting from a railway accident involving crude oil or other designated goods that exceed the minimum liability insurance coverage.
The enactment also amends the Railway Safety Act to, among other things,
(a) allow a province or municipality that incurs costs in responding to a fire that it is of the opinion was the result of a railway company’s railway operations to apply to the Canada Transportation Agency to have those costs reimbursed by the railway company;
(b) clarify the Governor in Council’s power to make regulations respecting the restriction and prevention of access to land on which a line of railway is situated, including by means of fences or signs on that land or on land adjoining it;
(c) authorize a railway safety inspector who is satisfied that there is an immediate threat to the safety or security of railway operations to order a person or company to take any measure that the inspector specifies to mitigate the threat;
(d) authorize the Minister to require, by order, a company, road authority or municipality to follow the procedures or take the corrective measures that the Minister specifies if the Minister considers it necessary in the interests of safe railway operations;
(e) provide the Governor in Council with a regulation-making power regarding the submission of information that is relevant to the safety of railway operations by any person, other than the Minister to any person;
(f) authorize the Minister to order a company that is implementing its safety management system in a manner that risks compromising railway safety to take the necessary corrective measures; and
(g) declare that certain regulations and orders that were made under the Railway Act are deemed to have had effect from the day on which they were made under that Act and that those regulations and orders continue to have effect from that day as if they were made under the Railway Safety Act.

Safe and Accountable Rail Act

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague for his speech and I commend him on all his hard work on this file. Obviously, he raised all our constituents' concerns over rail safety.

We can see that the government is being very inconsistent. It is great that Bill C-52 would increase the companies' insurance premiums, but that measure is not enough.

Another thing we have to be proactive about is assessing safety in the first place. There was talk of deregulation, but the number of inspectors is quite small, since only one inspector is being added.

Could my colleague elaborate on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate Bill C-52. This is a government bill that amends the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act. It is a reaction to what happened in Lac-Mégantic.

I would like to begin by saying that I support the government's amendments because they are a step in the right direction. However, we would like to know why the government waited so long to do this. Why did it take a tragedy like Lac-Mégantic for the government to fix some of these problems?

Before getting into the details of the bill, I would like to go over the background. In 2013, a tragedy occurred that shocked the entire nation and had a terrible impact on the people of Lac-Mégantic. Everyone knows that 47 people were killed. Unfortunately, we cannot change that. However, the NDP has said since the beginning that we must learn from our mistakes. What happened? Why was the self-regulation and self-inspection system, which was implemented by the Liberals and maintained by the Conservatives, in place for so long?

As we all know, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities studied the transportation of dangerous goods. The NDP presented a supplementary opinion. We found that, once again, the recommendations were a step in the right direction, but did not go far enough. Meanwhile, we did not hear any recommendations from the Liberal Party.

We need to know why the Lac-Mégantic tragedy happened. Despite a study that took from November 2013 until now to complete, since the report was tabled in the House relatively recently, many questions remain unanswered. That is why one of the NDP's recommendations called for a public inquiry to really get to the bottom of what happened. Our proposal has the support of the people of Lac-Mégantic and, more recently, the support of the Lac-Mégantic city council.

A lot of questions remain unanswered. For instance, why is it that the government authorized MMA to operate with a single conductor, especially considering that company's poor safety record? Why was MMA given an exemption? I would remind the House that in the entire country, only two companies were exempt from the rule that required two conductors. Why did the government authorize just one conductor, especially in the case of MMA, a company with a troubling history, as we know?

Other questions were also raised. How is it that the government still has not assumed its share of the responsibility, despite the investigation done by the Transportation Safety Board, which found the government at least partially to blame? It is rather uncommon for the Transportation Safety Board to come down so hard on a government. I spoke with some residents of Lac-Mégantic, and I can assure you that they remain frustrated about the lack of information. They do not feel as though justice has been served. No one can understand why the government refuses to launch an independent public inquiry to really get to the bottom of what happened.

To come back to the bill, the Lac-Mégantic tragedy made us realize something else. Afterward, we realized that MMA had $25 million in liability insurance. That amount does not even begin to cover the $400 million that has been spent to date on cleaning up and rebuilding, and that cost may still go up. How can a company have only $25 million in insurance? One of the ways that the government responded and the reason why we are supporting this bill is that it will require rail companies to increase their liability insurance, or at the very least, it will impose a minimum amount on them. As I said, this is a step in the right direction. However, if we take a closer look at the table, we see that a minimum of $25 million is being imposed on the smallest rail companies that transport smaller amounts of dangerous goods.

That is the same amount that was set for MMA. On the other hand, the government wants to set the minimum level of liability coverage for larger companies at $1 billion. That includes CN and CP, which are class 1 railways that carry substantial amounts of dangerous goods. Without getting into too much detail, the bill sets out minimum levels of liability insurance up to a maximum of $1 billion based on the type of dangerous goods that the company transports.

Why are these levels based on the quantity of dangerous goods that are transported all year? The Lac-Mégantic incident involved a small rail company that happened to be transporting a fairly large quantity of dangerous goods at the time. However, the costs associated with the disaster are far greater than the limits set out in this bill, particularly for small companies.

Once again, we will not give the government a blank cheque. We know that this bill is a step in the right direction, but we want answers to these questions.

What is more, this bill provides for a disaster relief fund financed by shippers to cover any damages resulting from accidents involving crude oil.

I asked the question of the minister today regarding what I will call the disaster relief fund. The minister said today that it would be pegged at $250 million. I am asking why we are pegging the disaster relief fund at $250 million.

I mentioned before that the Lac-Mégantic disaster will cost more than $400 million. Also, if we really believe in the principle of polluter pays, why put a cap? Does that not mean that in the case that the railroad company does not have enough insurance, then the disaster relief fund would apply? If it is capped at $250 million, who else would have to pay for the cleanup and reconstruction? At the end of the day, it is the taxpayers who would have to pay, through the government.

That is actually what is happening right now. We saw it happening in Lac-Mégantic. Unfortunately, we do not understand why there will be a cap here, especially of $250 million. That is another question we will have to ask the minister and probably a Transport Canada official.

I asked the minister another question, and we will probably agree to disagree. The minister said they have increased the number of rail safety inspectors to a sufficient number. I mentioned before in the House and in committee that the government has only hired one additional inspector for rail safety. I am not the person who is saying that; it is Transport Canada actually answering one of my questions.

We know the impact on the environment after what we saw in Lac-Mégantic and with the derailments in the northern part of Ontario. My colleague from Timmins mentioned the Gogama derailment and the implications it has with respect to the environment. If the only answer from the government is to hire one more rail safety inspector, that is a problem, especially after we read in the TSB's preliminary report that there were issues with rail infrastructure.

The government says it is not allowing self-inspection or that SMS is sufficient. What the NDP is saying on this side of the House is that although the safety management system put in place by the Liberals is a system that goes in the right direction, how it is applied and enforced is key, and what we have seen is the government just transferring all the responsibilities to the railway companies.

That is clear because when we ask questions to railway companies as to who is responsible for inspections, they will tell us they are.

On the other side, all Transport Canada is looking at is mainly whether the safety management system is existent. Again, the Auditor General and the TSB said that the way it was applied and enforced was not sufficient.

Questions were raised with regard to whether Transport Canada had enough resources. We know the rail safety directorate, the body that is in charge of overseeing and ensuring that rail safety is enforced and applied, has had its budget cut by 20%, if we look at the 2010 numbers. The government's actions speak louder than words. It is cutting the rail safety directorate, the body that looks at ensuring rail safety is enforced.

When we talk about rail safety, again, there is the issue of the lack of oversight. That was raised a long time ago by the TSB, and it has been raised by the official opposition. However, when we look at the action, which is cutting budgets to the rail safety directorate, we do not understand where the government intends to take leadership in ensuring that oversight is there.

I have also asked the minister questions about the number of railways that have received penalties in the past few years.

The response from the Minister of Transport is zero. The railway companies have been fined zero dollars, when we know that some companies have not been obeying the laws or the regulations and are cutting corners.

The government is currently cutting the budget of those responsible for inspecting the railway companies and enforcing the law, but what is more, it is fining the railway companies zero dollars. The law is not actually being enforced.

Further on in Bill C-52, some measures are introduced to give the minister and the inspectors more authority. On that issue, we support the proposed amendments.

Indeed, when we know that a railway company is breaking the rules or has some safety problems, then it is important for the government to take action.

Again, we take issue with the lack of transparency in all this. There is a reason we asked for a public inquiry into the Lac-Mégantic tragedy and the transportation of dangerous goods. Again, we are not getting all the answers that we and the public are looking for.

When it comes to lack of transparency, we need not look very far; we just have to look at the government. The former minister said that if municipalities wanted information about dangerous goods passing through their area, they would have to complete an access to information request.

I have to acknowledge that the current minister has made progress. However, that does show this government's reluctance to share information and work with the municipalities.

There is not yet full co-operation with the municipalities. I wonder how the municipalities are going to pay for their first responders' training and ensure that they have all the training information and the resources needed to respond to an emergency.

Unfortunately, what I heard from the many municipal councillors and mayors I met with is not reassuring. I travelled around Quebec to hear from Quebeckers and, unfortunately, they still feel that there is a lack of co-operation and information-sharing.

For example, since Lac-Mégantic, the Transportation Safety Board has asked railway companies to provide their risk assessments.

Companies must assess the risks, for example when they pass through a densely populated area or when they are transporting a certain quantity of a particular type of product. In the United States, the assessments are public and can be viewed. The Canadian government has not taken steps to enable the public—and especially the groups affected, like municipalities—to access these assessments.

In committee we asked why a particular risk was taken, what risk assessments were done and whether Transport Canada had received them. The response was that risk assessments had been done. Transport Canada responded that all of that information is not made public. We cannot get an answer to our question. The NDP thinks that the government should be much more transparent.

Unfortunately it takes disasters like the one in Lac-Mégantic and the ones in northern Ontario for people to truly see what is going on. It is shocking to see what happens, for example, with train derailments and the impact they have on the environment. The government continues to lack transparency.

I have to say that this and other bills have been steps in the right direction. However, there are still some unresolved issues. One of those issues is the rail cars that were introduced after the Lac-Mégantic accident even though the Transportation Safety Board of Canada has been asking the government to make rail cars safer for the past 20 years. At the time they were called DOT-111 tank cars, or class 111 tank cars. “DOT-111” is the term used in the United States.

Last year, the government introduced new standards in response to Canadians' concerns. The government said it would take three years for all of the rail cars in use in Canada to comply with the new standards. Unfortunately, the Gogama incident and the subsequent Transportation Safety Board report showed that CPC-1232 tank cars were not adequate either. The new DOT-111 tank cars, which the minister said are the new standard, are not appropriate. They respond just like the old DOT-111 tank cars. That is not according to me; that is according to the Transportation Safety Board itself. We still have the same concerns.

The minister said that new standards would be brought in. I asked why it took so long for that to happen.

The minister's response was that it was negotiating and dealing with the U.S., which takes time. However, when we talk about the safety of Canadians, we know these standards are not sufficient. It will take another 10 years to put the promised standards in place. That is 10 more years for us to have these unsafe rail tankers going through our cities and near our schools. I have heard a lot about that from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. They are worried.

Although these are steps in the right direction, there is still a requirement for stronger regulations and enforcement. The main concern is with respect to the lack of oversight. The government has said that it is moving forward on that front, but we know the budget for the rail safety directorate has been cut by 20% since 2010 and when we only have one additional inspector, those actions speak louder than words. The government needs to do more to ensure that safety of Canadians is the number one priority.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would refer the hon. member to proposed section 87 of the Canada Transportation Act, under clause 4 of Bill C-52, where we give the definition of crude oil. I can assure the member that there was a lot of discussion with respect to that with Transport Canada officials. Where we landed is where we list it here, which is in compliance with the United Nations designation and classifications.

We will always make sure we are getting the appropriate capture with respect to crude oil to ensure it is part of the shippers' fund. We cast the net quite widely in this case, but if there are any specific concerns that the member may have with respect to that, I will ask her to bring it up for Transport Canada officials, through me, and we will be able to get you the appropriate answer.

My understanding is that we threw the net widely in order to capture the entire definition in accordance with the United Nations regulations.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill C-52, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in my place to begin the second reading of Bill C-52, the safe and accountable rail act.

Since arriving at Transport Canada, I have made safety my absolute top priority.

As minister, I have borne witness to events that have led us to examine the safety regime and the manner in which railways and shippers are held accountable when things go wrong. Things can and do go wrong.

The most notable event without question was the explosion of railway cars in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, on July 6, 2013, and the 47 people who died that day, a day that will be inscribed in the memory of all members of this House. It has galvanized our determination to find better ways to protect Canadians and our communities, and better ways to safely move the goods on which the Canadian economy depends.

We are committed to achieving that, and we have taken decisive measures to do so.

Very soon after the tragedy, we introduced measures to address safety issues. We established two-person minimum crews for locomotives pulling dangerous goods, and we slowed the speed of all of those trains. We adjusted the specifications of tank cars, and immediately took the least crash-resistant cars off the rails. We strengthened regulations and we increased inspections. We also took steps to address longer-term issues. We have been working with municipalities, first responders, railways and shippers to strengthen emergency response across this country.

In August, the Transportation Safety Board issued its final investigation report on the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, and again we responded. Last October, I introduced further measures, including an emergency directive on how trains are to be braked, the accurate classification of dangerous goods and steps to improve training of all rail employees.

We also introduced measures to make safety management systems more effective in ways that I will discuss in more detail, but I want to emphasize this: this government has implemented every single one of the recommendations of the Transportation Safety Board in response to Lac-Mégantic. We have learned the lessons inherent in past tragedies, and our commitment to safety is absolute.

The bill before us introduces further steps to strengthen the safety regime of Canada's railways and ensure the accountability of railways in the case of accidents. It moves on three different fronts. The first is prevention. Amendments would strengthen the regulatory regime to reduce the likelihood of rail accidents. The second is communication for effective response. The bill would allow for requirements related to information sharing between railways and municipalities to improve the response in case of emergencies. The third is accountability. The bill would take steps to ensure railways have enough insurance to pay for damages. It would also make crude oil shippers accountable for what they put on the rails by ensuring they pay into a supplementary fund that would be available when an accident involves crude.

The bill before us would amend two pieces of legislation: the Railway Safety Act and the Canada Transportation Act. Taken together, these amendments represent a significant step in improving the overall safety in Canada's railways, especially in the transportation of dangerous goods. These amendments respond to the recommendations of the Transportation Safety Board in response to Lac-Mégantic, and the 2013 fall report of the Auditor General. We welcomed all their input.

Let me begin with prevention and the features of the bill that would help prevent rail accidents. The Railway Safety Act sets out a regulatory framework to address the safety, the security and the environmental impact of rail. Under the act, federally regulated railways are responsible for the safety of their rail line infrastructure, of their railway equipment and of their operations.

Transport Canada monitors the railway's compliance with the act and with the department's rules, regulations and engineering standards.

Transport Canada also conducts audits and inspections to ensure that the overall safety of railway operations is maintained. Canadians can be assured that Transport Canada does not and will not hesitate to take appropriate action to address safety concerns. The bill before us today would provide new authorities to the safety inspectors and to the Minister of Transport to do just that.

Under this bill, a new provision would give the Minister of Transport the authority to order a railway to take a corrective action, to stop any action, to follow any procedure or to suspend operation. In other words, the minister would be able to intervene directly should there be a concern for safety.

A Transport Canada railway safety inspector would be given broader authority to issue notices and orders to any person or entity, including railway companies, road authorities and municipalities, relating to safe railway operations. By increasing the authorities for the minister and railway safety inspectors, we would increase Transport Canada's ability to administer the Railway Safety Act and the regulations, the rules and the engineering standards made under the act. These are all powerful tools and they would increase the regulation of oversight of railway companies that Transport Canada regulates and would ensure that railways operate according to the standards established in the act.

However, I would like to emphasize that some of the most important steps that railways make to improve safety and safety culture are not the results of the provisions of the Railway Safety Act but are contained within their own safety management systems or SMS. I want to be clear on this point. A safety management system is not deregulation and it is not self-regulation; it is an internationally recognized, science-based process that has been used in rail transportation since 2001. SMS do not replace rules or regulations or inspections. They provide a systemic approach to safety that incorporates specific regulations and proactive measures to identify hazards and to mitigate risks.

Transport Canada has created regulatory requirements around safety management systems and the bill before us would strengthen the department's oversight. Under the amendments, I believe that if a railway company were implementing its safety management system in a way that could compromise railway safety, I could take that company to corrective action by placing an order. With this additional oversight, railways would have further incentive to ensure that they manage the risks associated with operating a railway.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the elements of this bill that would help quicken emergency response through closer communication and co-operation between railways and municipalities through which they pass. Under this bill, Transport Canada would have new authority to regulate the sharing of information, of documents and of records from one party to another other than the department, for example, from a railway company to a municipality.

Canada's history is one of towns and cities that sprang up along the rail lines in this country. We have to ensure that the people who live in these areas are safe. The collaboration between railways and communities on such matters would no longer be at the discretion of the railways. It would form part of a mandatory regulatory framework. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been an outspoken champion for better communication and more transparency between railways and municipalities on safety-related issues, and we thank its members for their input and advice.

In addition to prevention and effective communication for improved response, the third pillar of the bill involves accountability. By this, I mean the need to ensure those responsible for operating the railway system and those who put high-risk goods into the system would have the financial resources they need to compensate victims and to clean up communities if things go wrong. This is not just an issue that results from major tragedies such as what happened in Lac-Mégantic, although I will return to that in a moment.

More frequently, municipalities are called to respond to incidents of lesser impact, such as putting out fires that may have been caused as a result of a railway operation. Under the current regime, these costs are often borne by the provinces and municipalities and ultimately their taxpayers. However, under the bill before us, if a province or municipality believes that a fire was started as a result of railway operations, it can apply to the Canadian Transportation Agency for reimbursement. The amendment would give the agency authority to determine if indeed the fire was caused by railway operations, and would be able to determine the costs incurred in putting out the fire and require the railway to reimburse the province or municipality for those costs.

This amendment and the others I have spoken to today are changes to the Railway Safety Act that promote a safe and secure, efficient and environmentally responsible transportation system in Canada. The amendments would give Transport Canada more authority and oversight in rail operations, bring in a new era of communication between railways and municipalities in an effort to improve emergency preparedness, and help make the railways accountable for the costs incurred from fighting fires that result from their operations.

However, another important issue of accountability became all too apparent in the aftermath of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. The cost of the disaster in terms of the lives lost was incalculable. They are beyond words. However, there were calculable loss costs as well, and the costs of putting out the fire and clearing the debris, cleaning up the effects on the environment, and, of course, the costs of rebuilding a community and compensating, truly shattered lives. No one wants to anticipate such a disaster, but any responsible company must prepare for such eventualities by carrying sufficient insurance to cover the costs.

Under the Canada Transportation Act, federally regulated railways must carry insurance, but the Lac-Mégantic tragedy has proven that the measures now in place are simply not sufficient. Therefore, the bill before us identifies specific levels of insurance that must be carried, depending upon the type and volume of dangerous goods that the railway transports. These insurance requirements would come into force 12 months after the bill's royal assent, giving the insurance market the necessary time to adjust, and railways enough time to obtain the necessary insurance, which is usually purchased on an annual policy.

Class 1 railways carry significant quantities of dangerous goods, and they will be required to hold $1 billion in insurance. The House will be reassured to know that both CN and CP customarily carry more insurance than that. At the other end of the spectrum, railways carrying little or no dangerous goods would be required to hold $25 million in insurance. For short-line railways carrying higher amounts of dangerous goods, there would be an initial requirement to hold either $50 million or $125 million in insurance. One year later, those levels would increase to $100 million and $250 million respectively. This phase-in period would allow short-line railways time to adjust to the new requirements. The agency would be able to make inquiries to determine whether railways are maintaining the correct amount of insurance, and must revoke or suspend the certificate of fitness of any railway that fails to comply.

The agency can also enforce insurance requirements through administrative monetary penalties of up to $100,000, and there is more. Unfortunately, there is always the possibility and potential for a tragedy to exceed the ability of a railway's third-party insurance to cover the damages, so crude oil shippers must also share in the responsibility that comes with the transport of their dangerous goods. For those reasons, the bill would also create a supplemental fund that would be financed by levies on crude oil shippers, in the amount of $1.65 for every tonne of crude that is shipped. If the damages caused by a catastrophic crude oil accident were more than a railway company's insurance could cover, the fund would be there to cover the cost, not the taxpayers.

This is consistent with the polluter pays principle and is similar to the approach taken in marine transportation; the costs associated with an incident are shared by industry.

Crude oil shippers are included in the amendments before us today, but Transport Canada is looking at the possibility of expanding the regime to cover industries that ship other dangerous goods. In this way, we promote a shared accountability between rail carriers and the shippers of dangerous goods to ensure that victims and taxpayers are fully protected from bearing the costs of rail accidents.

Our goal is to ensure that communities, citizens, and taxpayers are protected in the event of an incident. The polluter will pay to clean up and provide compensation. We support a competitive rail sector and the resource economy that brings jobs to Canadians, but when it comes to safety in the transportation system, communities and citizens will always come first.

The measures in this bill come in addition to the steps the government has already taken to improve the rail safety regime. I would point out that there is a private member's bill that has been tabled to amend the Railway Safety Act, and I would like to commend the work of our colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Her private member's bill, Bill C-627, is also designed to provide greater protection to persons and property from railway operations.

The government supports this bill, and I wish to assure the House that we have coordinated the amendments in the bill before us to ensure that both bills will be harmonized when they reach royal assent. This is the customary way to give effect to two bills and will result in both bills having equal and consistent impact on the Railway Safety Act.

Railway operators and Transport Canada have taken many measures to improve rail safety, and this has reduced accident rates over the past several years. However, the amount of dangerous goods and other commodities moving by rail is increasing, and it will continue to grow. We need proper oversight to reduce accidents. We need better communication between railways and municipalities to provide more effective response, and we need a stronger liability and compensation regime in the event of an accident.

The bill addresses each of these areas. It introduces substantial changes to the regimes for both rail safety, and liability and compensation. In the last Speech from the Throne, this government committed to drawing upon the lessons of the tragedy at Lac-Mégantic to make shippers and rail companies accountable for rail safety.

With this bill, we are fulfilling that commitment.

Our system of transportation safety is strong, but it can be improved. By strengthening the safety, liability, and compensation regimes, we will improve public confidence in the rail industry. Above all, we will underscore that the safety and the security of Canadians remain the top priority of Transport Canada.

We have put in place many rail safety initiatives, through directives, orders, and regulations within the existing legislation framework.

This bill will enable us to take further measures.

I hope hon. members share my sense of urgency that we get this done, and that they join me in supporting this extremely important bill.

[Daniel Rubinstein]

Yes, from FCM's perspective, as I mentioned before, I think the key trend, both with this bill and Bill C-52, is the expansion of the scope in which the minister and inspectors can act when there's a threat. We know the development of the grade crossing regulations dealing with walk-crossing issues is prescribed right now for immediate threats. That's very narrow, so “significant threat” in this bill and then even the broader interpretation in Bill C-52 are welcome.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Now, from the government's perspective, obviously, and we've heard some of this today at the table, we have a private member who has seen an issue and has tried to address it with Bill C-627. Obviously, the government, from its own perspective, has brought forward a bill, Bill C-52, that takes a number of issues but has recognized what the private member has done and is looking for a way, I think, if it were to pass first, to dovetail that into the legislation.

We don't know which bill will pass, or both, or whatever. We're coming to the end of a parliament, so this committee is tasked with dealing with this specific bill and this specific language. Given that and Bill C-52 aside, do the stakeholders here support the measures of Bill C-627 moving forward? That's what this committee has to decide.

[Daniel Rubinstein]

No, FCM wasn't contacted on the content of the bill.

Just to make one point, I know Mr. Komarnicki asked whether, with the changes, it makes sense to have more powers to the minister to act when there's an issue. We would certainly say, yes, that in the current Railway Safety Act, it's limited to an immediate threat. This bill talks about expanding to significant threat. Bill C-52 goes further—

[Phil Benson]

What I'm saying is that if this bill were to include “imminent danger” it would be better. Our confusion is dealing with Bill C-52, where we think the minister's proposals are more fulsome. That's why we're suggesting to perhaps incorporate them into this bill, pass it, and at least we can get that part of it done before the end of the session.

I congratulate Ms. Bateman for bringing it.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for their presentations. They were most interesting.

I think the bill deserves even more attention. Everyone has brought up the fact that another bill is also under consideration. It's a bit difficult to see what the impact of this legislation will be on Bill C-52. It will make the discussion a bit more complex.

Be that as it may, we are discussing Bill C-627 today, and I will try to focus on that.

I would like to start with Ms. Quilan.

[Don Ashley, National Legislative Director, Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, Teamsters Canada]

Thank you, and thank you for having us here.

When it comes to the bill itself, we are fully supportive of anything that improves rail safety and gives the minister more regulatory impact on improving rail safety.

When it comes to crossing incidents, it's very impacting on our membership. The devastating effects that the public and the community see with these crossing accidents also deeply impacts our members and their families, and they're lasting affects. One of our highest areas of injury are critical incidents from these crossing accidents. Again, anything that can be done to improve that area would be supported by Teamsters Canada.

With the bill itself, the language is good. When it comes to the changes to sections 31 and 32 of the Railway Safety Act, we prefer the language in Bill C-52. Whether this bill gets picked up and the proposed change to section 9 gets moved to Bill C-52 or you amend this bill with the language from Bill C-52 in regard to sections 31 and 32, we would support either one of those alternatives.

[Phil Benson, Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm a lobbyist for Teamsters Canada and with me is Mr. Don Ashley. He's the national legislative director for the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference. I'll be dealing with some background issues and Mr. Ashley will be dealing with the bill itself.

Just to start, the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference represents the running trades, main lines and most of the short lines. With other components of teamsters divisions, we represent approximately 65% of rail labour.

I want to thank you for having me before the committee. In case this is the last time we get to come here during this Parliamentary lifespan, I'd like to thank the members present and past for their courtesy and for all their hard work. I think we've achieved a lot. We still have a lot to do, but I do want to thank you. If we have a chance to come back, that's great. If we don't, again, thank you very much.

As background, of course, we've seen recently that we have derailments and we have track issues with CPC-1232 cars. Previously, before the committee, we raised our concerns about the CPC-1232 cars, about whether they were actually suitable and if they would work. As we know, from the Gogama tragedy and elsewhere close to tragedy, there seem to be severe problems with them. Similarly, we all have concerns about the new 1711s.

The other issue that is a great concern to me is the movement of dilbit. After Lac-Mégantic and that tragedy—and our prayers and concerns still go out to the families there, that's going to be a long healing process—the issue of dilbit was not a concern from the experts that I attended meetings with, and I certainly attend a lot of them. The issue was shale oil. Clearly, after the Gogama accident, that region and track, that whole dilbit issue and synbit has to be reviewed again. I know it will be in upcoming meetings going forward, but that was a great surprise to me. It's not something that I expected.

Of course, we have Bill C-52.

The other thing we have been very busy with—you can see my stack of notes—is the safety management system regulations that will be in effect on April 1. We have been very busy over the last three weeks to a month being briefed on the bill, on the safety management systems, the processes, the updates, when it's going to happen. To be honest, there are parts we're confused about, parts we're disappointed with, and other parts we're quite pleased with.

One issue that's quite interesting for us is one of the issues that was raised before the committee during the Railway Safety Act amendments. That was the direct line from workers to Transport Canada rail safety, a 1-800 number to report safety issues. I'll ask you as I did last time, where's our 1-800 number? It seems to have not quite vanished, but I do not understand why it's a particular problem to set up a 1-800 number.

It's our position, as a matter of policy, that we do not support private members' bills on areas of transport and the Transportation Act unless the subject matter is tangential to the overall safety scheme. I think Bill C-52 really proves our point on that issue.

That being said, we want to thank Ms. Bateman for bringing it because obviously she had concerns. We would have supported the bill in a way because we did not find it particularly offensive in part. It is important for members to bring forward private members' bills. I'm not discouraging members to do it. However, quite often, acts like the Transportation Act are quite complex and it's very hard to just take out one little section without realizing there are a lot of other implications.

With that, I'll pass it over to Mr. Ashley to deal with the bill.

[Michael Bourque, President and Chief Executive Officer, Railway Association of Canada]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. Thank you.

I want to begin by saying that safety is of the utmost importance to the railway industry. Our members are committed to safety and are constantly looking for ways to improve their performance whether it's through training, risk assessment, infrastructure investments, or technology.

Our industry aIso believes in working collaboratively with government, labour groups, municipalities, and other stakeholders on improving our safety performance. ln the last 20 months especially, we've seen new train securement and operating practices, new tank car standards, and many other measures introduced, all of which will contribute to improving safety.

Crossing safety, which member of Parliament, Joyce Bateman, identified as the motivation behind Bill C-627, is aIso a pressing issue for our industry. There are currently more than 31,000 federally regulated grade crossings in Canada, and crossing accidents account for nearly 20% of all rail incidents in Canada. Sadly, a third of those incidents result in death or serious injury.

Crossing safety is an important issue, but I'm not sure Bill C-627 is the best way to tackle it. In fact, I'm questioning why we're discussing it today. As a number of committee members pointed out earlier this week, Bill C-52 will repeal key sections of this bill.

Our primary concern with Bill C-627 is that it may be redundant and it could create confusion. Section 4 of the current Railway Safety Act already states that “regard shall be had not only to the safety of persons and property transported by railways but also to the safety of other persons and other property” in determining whether railway operations are safe, or whether something constitutes a threat to safety.

ln addition, under section 31 of the current Railway Safety Act, railway safety inspectors, on behalf of the Minister of Transport, already have the power to order a rail line or crossing to be closed, or the use of railway equipment to be stopped, if they deem it to be a threat to safety. However, it may well be that improvements to the act are required, and we certainly appreciate many of the crossing safety concerns that Ms. Bateman raised before this committee.

As a result of urban growth around railway operations, traffic has increased at existing crossings and additional crossings have been built to relieve road congestion across the country. Communities and city planners need to think about alternatives to creating new grade crossings, and what upgrades can be made to improve safety at existing crossings.

Although not specifically aimed at crossings, we're making some progress through our joint proximity initiative with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and we recently saw Montreal adopt our Guidelines for New Development in Proximity to Railway Operations as part its long-term development plan. Montreal was the first major urban centre to adopt the guidelines and we're hopeful that other cities will follow suit.

But more can be done. I'll read you a quote. I'm sorry, it's a little bit long, but bear with me.

ln its report, the advisory panel for the Railway Safety Act review recommended that the act be amended to require developers and municipalities to engage in a process of consultation with railway companies prior to any decision respecting land use that may affect railway safety.

We believe that one of the most efficient ways of improving railway safety in this area is to give the Governor in Council the power to make regulations respecting notices that should be given to railways regarding the establishment of a local plan of subdivision, or zoning by-law, or proposed amendments thereto, where the subject land is within 300 metres of a railway line or railway yard. We believe the 300 metres is a distance that makes sense from a safety point of view.

Further, we also believe, as is done in the Aeronautics Act today, that power should be given to the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the control or prohibition of any other activity in the vicinity of a land on which a line of railway is situated, to the extent that it could constitute a threat to safe railway operations.

These comments were made by my predecessor, Cliff Mackay, to this committee during its review of the Railway Safety Act in 2012, and this is still our position today. Railways are required by law to notify municipalities of any proposed work. We would like to see the Railway Safety Act amended to require developers and municipalities to consult with railway companies prior to making decisions about land use that could affect railway safety.

Another way that we can tackle the issue of crossing safety is to review the existing regulatory approach for opening and closing rail crossings in Canada. Under the existing regime, Transport Canada has the authority to close grade crossings after completing a risk analysis. Meanwhile, the Canadian Transportation Agency has the authority to open new crossings without having to assess public safety. This dichotomy of authority has jeopardized public safety and led to some counterproductive outcomes. In one case, the Canadian Transportation Agency ordered a railway to open a crossing after Transport Canada had ordered it permanently closed for safety reasons.

Furthermore, the number of crossing-related accidents has not decreased over the last decade. Since 2003, there have been more than 2,300 crossing-related accidents and 670 serious injuries and/or fatalities. As I mentioned earlier, 30% of the crossing-related accidents over the last five years have resulted in serious injury or fatality. The increasing number of level crossings, the increase in traffic moved by freight and passenger rail, as well as truck and automobile traffic suggest that crossing-related injuries and fatalities will continue to be a problem in the future if action is not taken. Recent government efforts to improve safety at grade crossings will help, but the best way to improve safety is to close more crossings.

Canada's grade crossings regulations came into effect last December 17. These regulations outline a series of improvements that must be made to grade crossings, including private crossings. Short line railways alone expect that they will invest somewhere in the order of $85 million to meet these regulatory requirements, and the estimate at the time of regulation was a cost of about half a billion dollars to the industry to meet these regulations.

There is also the issue of private crossings. We have many instances where private roads crossing over rail lines are used by one or more landowners, and where there is no crossing agreement. In these situations, railways advise users of the crossing of the need for a crossing agreement, setting out terms of use for construction and maintenance. But in many cases, users are unwilling to enter into these agreements, especially when crossing upgrades are necessary.

Section 103 of the Canada Transportation Act deals with the situation in which the railway company and the landowner adjoining the railway disagree on the suitability or maintenance of a private crossing. Currently, section 103 only permits the landowner to apply to the agency for the resolution of a dispute. There is no comparable right given to the railway company. We believe that, in the interest of safety, railways should have the equal right to apply to the agency under section 103.

The government aIso recently made changes to its grade crossing improvement program. Transport Canada has considerably reduced the amount that it will contribute towards grade crossing improvements. Transport Canada used to cover 80% of the cost of a grade crossing and now only covers 50%. Under the current funding formula, railways are expected to absorb almost 40% of the cost of these upgrades. Furthermore, we are told that compliance with the new regulations will not be an accepted reason for applying for funds under the grade crossing improvement program, and that these funds are not available to provincially regulated railways, which must nevertheless comply with the regulations.

When Joyce Bateman was testifying to this committee the other day, I noticed that what started as an issue of safety quickly morphed into an issue of convenience. I understand it is difficult when constituents call and complain about waiting at a railway crossing for 15 or 20 minutes, but let's consider the alternative.

Earlier this week, Jim Vena, from CN, mentioned that it's not unusual to have trains that are over 150 cars long. One hundred and fifty railcars is the equivalent of about 375 tractor trailers that would otherwise be on our roads. Without rail service, we would have more congestion, more pollution, less safety, and more greenhouse gases. Rail is about 20 times more efficient than trucks in terms of greenhouse gas emissions' intensity, and let's not forget about the economic argument. Railways need to maintain velocity and fluidity on their tracks in order to deliver high levels of service to their customers. When an accident occurs, the whole network gets clogged.

The rail industry is currently operating under a quota for grain. Last year's enormous grain crop was 20 million metric tonnes larger than the average crop. This 20 million metric tonnes required around 2,000 trains, each with 100 cars, to move it to port; then they had to return.

We need rail to move the economy, so before we start making small steps that we think may solve a specific problem, let's make sure we are not further hindering our ability to enable the competitiveness of our customers and the economy in this globally competitive world.

Thank you very much.

[Pauline Quinlan, Co-Chair, National Municipal Rail Safety Working Group, Mayor, City of Bromont, Federation of Canadian Municipalities]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon and thank you, Mr. Chair, for your introduction. Thank you to the committee members for extending an invitation to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to participate in your study of Bill C-627, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act, safety of persons and property. FCM last appeared before the committee in May 2014, as part of your study on safety management systems and the transportation of dangerous goods, and we are pleased to be here again.

I am the mayor of the City of Bromont, Quebec, and chair of the Quebec caucus of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I am happy to be here today to represent the Federation of Canadian Municipalities as the co-chair of the FCM's National Municipal Rail Safety Working Group.

The National Municipal Rail Safety Working Group, which I co-chair, was created in the wake of the catastrophe that devastated the town of Lac-Mégantic in 2013.

The group's work is guided by the following three principles: equipping and supporting municipal first responders to rail emergencies, ensuring that federal and industry policies and regulations address the rail safety concerns of municipalities, and preventing the downloading of rail safety and emergency response costs to municipal taxpayers.

I am joined today by Daniel Rubinstein, Manager of Policy and Research at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. He also handles issues related to rail safety.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities represents 90% of Canada's population and about 2,000 municipalities from across the country. Our mission is to promote and protect the interests of all communities—small or big, urban or rural, central or remote—on issues related to policies and programs that fall under federal jurisdiction.

The federation raises various issues related to rail safety and actively participates in many rail safety initiatives. We are a member of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods General Policy Advisory Council, the Advisory Council on Railway Safety, as well as the emergency response task force. We are also working closely with Minister Raitt and Transport Canada officials on all those issues.

Before speaking about Bill C-627, I want to reiterate for committee members that FCM and the national municipal rail safety working group are guided by essential work undertaken by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.

The TSB serves a critical function in terms of making safety recommendations to the federal government, and at FCM we believe the standard for progress is full implementation of TSB safety recommendations. My colleagues and I at FCM are pleased that the government's response to the TSB report into the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic has indeed been fulsome. We expect the same type of response once the TSB has had the opportunity to fully investigate the recent derailments in northern Ontario and make additional recommendations to government.

In terms of the focus of today's meeting, let me say a few words about Bill C-627. FCM fully supports any legislative measure that clarifies or enhances the ability of the Minister of Transport and Transport Canada officials to conduct robust oversight and enforcement of safety on Canada’s federal railways. Bill C-627 does that just by clarifying that safe railway operations also includes the “safety of persons and property”.

As was discussed at the committee's last meeting this past Tuesday, these provisions complement the enhanced oversight and enforcement powers contained in Bill C-52, the safe and accountable rail act, which was introduced by Minister Raitt last month.

Related to Bill C-627 is the issue of safety standards at railway-roadway level crossings, otherwise known as grade crossings. FCM is fully supportive of Transport Canada’s new grade crossing regulations, which for the first time establish standards for sightlines, warning systems, and other key safety components at both new and existing crossings. These regulations respond to a long-standing recommendation from the TSB.

Over the next seven years, all existing grade crossings in Canada will need to be upgraded to the basic standards laid out in the regulations. Our members and federal railways are in the very early stages of sharing information with each other about existing crossings, which is the first step laid under the regulations. Information sharing must be completed by the end of 2016.

You can expect to hear more from the FCM about the need for additional federal funding for grade crossing improvements once we are able to assess the cost impact of meeting the new grade crossing regulations at existing crossings.

Shifting from rail safety to emergency planning and response, the national municipal rail safety working group has also been vocal about the need for shipments of flammable liquids to require detailed emergency response assistance plans, or ERAPs. ERAPs play a critical function in assisting local first responders in the event of a serious incident involving dangerous goods.

In April 2014 Transport Canada responded favourably to FCM’s request, by expanding Transport Canada’s ERAP requirements to shipments of crude oil, ethanol, gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel. This regulatory change has provided municipalities with certainty that shippers of flammable liquids will provide specialized assistance when major incidents take place involving these products.

Also in April 2014 Minister Raitt established an emergency response task force with participation from key stakeholders, including FCM, to strengthen nationwide emergency response planning and training. The ERTF has a mandate to submit its recommendations later this year.

As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, in February Minister Raitt announced new legislation, Bill C-52, to improve rail safety and the transportation of dangerous goods in Canada. Key elements of Bill C-52 respond directly to concerns related to insurance and liability, information sharing, and Transport Canada’s oversight of federal railways that were raised by FCM at our last appearance in May 2014.

These are a few examples of policy areas where proactive and ongoing collaboration between FCM and the federal government has resulted in concrete reforms that will improve the safety of Canada’s railways and Canada's population.

That said, unfortunately our work is not yet done as derailments continue to occur. Again, we look to the TSB to provide Canadians with an analysis of the causes of recent derailments and recommendations to further improve rail safety. We look to the government, the railway industry, and Parliament through this committee, to ensure that any recommendations are implemented in full.

In closing, FCM welcomes new measures to clarify and expand the oversight and enforcement powers of the minister and railway safety inspectors, including the amendments to the Railway Safety Act proposed in Bill C-627.

I want to thank the committee once again for giving us an opportunity to share our point of view.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue debating government Motion No. 17, respecting Canada's military contribution to the campaign against the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. Considering the importance of that debate, we will be continuing it, under an order of the House, until midnight tonight.

ISIL has stated its intention to target Canada and Canadians. In fact, ISIL issued a call to action for people to attack targets in Canada. So far two attackers have responded to that call. That is why we have to take on ISIL, take on the threat it poses and keep it from establishing a geographic foothold from which to operate. We intend to continue to degrade and destroy ISIL.

That is why we are seeking the support of Canadian parliamentarians for our decision to extend and expand Canada's military mission with our allies so we can effectively fight this jihadism which threatens our national security and global security.

We will return to that debate on Monday afternoon and complete it that day.

Tomorrow, we will continue—and, hopefully, conclude—the third reading debate on Bill C-26, the Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act.

Monday, before question period, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-52, the Safe and Accountable Rail Act. This legislation will improve railway safety and strengthen oversight while protecting taxpayers and making the rail industry more accountable to communities. This debate will continue on Tuesday.

On Wednesday, the House will resume the second reading debate of Bill C-42, the common sense firearms licensing act. The bill meets the government's objective to cut red tape for law-abiding firearms owners and provide safe and simpler firearms policies. Changes to the Criminal Code would enable the government to take steps to ensure the rights of lawful firearms owners would be respected. The debate will continue on Thursday, when we will adjourn for Easter.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Hi, Ms. Bateman. Thanks for joining us.

I want to commend you on your work and on the bill. It's a positive step forward and I think Canadians will appreciate it. In my own city of Ottawa we suffered a terrible tragedy some time ago when an OC Transpo bus was hit by a train at a level crossing. People lost their lives and many people are still recovering and families are still traumatized. I think if this goes some distance in preventing this kind of accident in the future, it would be very positive.

Following up on my colleague's line of questioning, which I was going to take as well, there appears to be some duplication here between your bill and the government's Bill C-52.

Maybe just to cut right to it, are you prepared to have your bill amended so that it's actually integrable with the government's measures or “fungible” as we would say?