Transport Committee on April 16th, 2007

[Gordon Rhodes]

You could probably phone Don's wife. If she has kept them on her computer, I'm sure she would give them to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're out of time.

Monsieur Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Good afternoon, Mr. Rhodes.

I would like to thank you for being here and congratulate you on your sincerity, even though it could jeopardize your job, as you told us. I think that all members of Parliament will benefit from your testimony today.

I would like to go over a few details. When you say that there seems to have been a reduction in safety since 1995, does that correspond with the time at which the Safety Management System was introduced? My colleague was saying earlier, this is a system that officials want to use more in the air sector, and rail is mentioned as an example. Is there a connection between the two?

[Gordon Rhodes]

I really am not sure. No, I couldn't tell you. I think there are other people you can ask who would be more qualified to answer that, probably somebody like John Holliday.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

You also said that there were fewer inspectors now. The principle of the Safety Management System is that the company develops its own safety system, which means that the inspectors will check the system, rather than going to check the situation on the ground. You said that you had not heard that the company had introduced a safety system. You have not seen any improvement in this regard?

[Gordon Rhodes]

No, the only safety that's been improved on.... I tried to be on the safety committee in Lillooet after we were sold, and we were stonewalled for months and told no, you can't be on it; you don't have a big enough terminal, and there's no need for you. It took the accident and my friends to die before I was on the safety committee. That's where I am now: I'm on the safety committee and trying to effect change.

I have some serious concerns about my area. It just seems as if they're addressing them to some degree, but very grudgingly.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

You also mentioned that the safety standards were higher in provincially-run companies than in those run by the federal government. I think the opposite should be true — namely that the federal standards should be higher, and set an example for the provinces.

I know you are from the west. I am from Quebec. What information do you have about Quebec railway companies, such as the Quebec-Gatineau Railway Inc.?

[Gordon Rhodes]

I have no knowledge or experience with the Quebec northern railway there. I have worked with people who have come from there, who worked in B.C. Rail. They feel that it was very similar, the way it was operating in B.C. Rail. CN is a totally different kettle of fish. It's a different way of running things. Transport Canada needs to step up its standards.

I know people who run trains out of Kamloops on CPR. They cooperate with each other and they use CN track to run the loads down to Vancouver and then they run the empty trains on the other track, on the CPR track. One friend told me that CN's track is scary, and he's a former B.C. Rail engineman. He says that CN's track is scary to go on through the canyon.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Earlier, you said that CN was an international company, that trains left Mexico, crossed the United States and came all the way to Canada.

Are safety standards not more stringent in the United States,as one might think? Would that not mean that the CN trains or locomotives would be safer because they're going through the United States. Is the situation just as bad in the United States?

[Gordon Rhodes]

It's worse. In the United States they are not required yet to have a safety alerter on the head end of the train for the engineman--a dead man's switch. In the United States--it could have changed by now--there was no requirement for the SBU. It's the replacement for the caboose.

Transport Canada insisted that there be an emergency release feature, which means that I as an engineman can release the air brakes, set the brakes up from the tail end, release the air out of the train, and the brakes will all set up. That could be from the SBU on the tail end. In the United States they don't require it, because it's an extra $1,000 a unit. So they don't require it. Six men died back in the 1990s in the United States because of that.

I persisted with the company here, with B.C. Rail, for two years, to get the rules changed for going down our mountain with that SBU not working, because before they'd just say you slow down and you keep going, and I'd say no, I have to have that feature on the tail end. It took two years of fighting with them to where I got it so that they'd do it. That's a rule now. I don't know if it's been changed. I don't think it's been changed by CN and by Transport Canada. I sure hope it never is, because that feature will save lives.

So, no, it's not better in the United States than here. We are better than them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for coming today. We've learned a lot and it has been a very moving testimony, something that sticks in everybody's mind here in this committee. Quite frankly, I want you to know that this Conservative government and I think all members of this committee want the truth, and we appreciate your being able to give us that truth, because that's what we want and that's what we have to do as parliamentarians.

First, you are familiar with the fact that the Minister of Transport announced a full review of the Railway Safety Act, by an independent panel, on December 14 of last year.

[Gordon Rhodes]

Yes, I was aware that he announced that on December 14. I was thrilled; I was relieved. To me, that is something that is way overdue. It's needed big time. I don't know what other adjectives I can come up with.

The reason I came here is because I did read the information on the Internet about this committee and I felt that this committee can be very constructive. I'm hoping that positive change can come out of this for everyone. To me, it's not just a matter of safety for me, for the workers, or for the public; it's also a matter that you operate safer, it's more profitable for the company to.... I just don't understand their logic of what they're at. It's like B.C. Rail. As efficient as they were, we workers could always see they could be better. Because they could be better, we were always pushing them. We ended up being the most productive railway in North America, number one. That was because we all worked together.

I don't understand this poisoned work environment. I don't see how it's profitable.

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

I think most members of this committee would agree, and I certainly agree. I come from an environment, Fort McMurray, where safety is number one. And I can assure you that the companies there take it very seriously. It's actually a culture in that area.

It's easy to blame people, and I think all of us can go around this table and blame previous Liberal governments or previous whatever. The reality is, though, we want to find solutions.

You've mentioned quite a few things. You've mentioned the equipment. You've mentioned the environment, such as mountains and curves, 12-degree curves that cause tremendous problems. You've also mentioned administrative issues, such as inspectors and training and experience.

If you could pick three things that you would change, Mr. Rhodes, what would they be, as far as changing the environment to be much safer?

[Gordon Rhodes]

If I could pick three things to change to make the environment much safer, I would make the front line and the superintendents--all the head, top officials--accountable. I would make them certified. They would have to have a certification. You can't just be anybody to go and sit down and run trains, so why should it be that anybody can just sit down and manage trains? No, these are not virtual railways. This isn't a little toy, here. These are real things that can have devastating effects. So those people should have to be qualified. That would be my number one thing, because if you do that, you get rid of a lot of the other stuff, because those people will be in a position to make the right decisions and will be doing that because they're going to be accountable. That's number one.

Number two, I would hire more people. The railway is understaffed. They don't have enough people to do the jobs they're required to do. They have overworked people.

Go and talk to rail traffic controllers. Have one of them come in here and talk to you. That's what you guys should do. You should talk to RTCs. If you want to talk about a stressful job, those are guys who have stressful jobs.

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

And what would be the third one?

[Gordon Rhodes]

Transport Canada needs more teeth. They need more teeth. I've talked to quite a few individuals who work for Transport Canada, and they are frustrated by the fact that they can't do anything.

I used to work in the forest industry years ago. I used to be a forest technician. I would go into the bush and audit logging sites, and stuff. There's nothing more frustrating than when you walk up to a company official and you tell him, “This isn't right, and you'd better do something about it”, and they just laugh at you and say, “We'll pay the fine”.

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

There's no penalty, is what you're saying.

[Gordon Rhodes]

Yes.

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

There should be more consequences and accountability.

[Gordon Rhodes]

That's right.

It's not enough to just make sure that they are qualified. You've got to have some real teeth to the penalties so that they sit up and take notice, because $80,000 is nothing to them. Two million dollars is nothing to them.

You guys should look into how much the railways had to pay in the United States for the environmental catastrophes they've caused down there, and what they've had to put in trusts to rehabilitate environments that they've damaged. It's in the millions. It's not $2 million; it's in the millions.

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

I want to thank you, Mr. Rhodes, for your testimony. We really do appreciate it. You've been excellent. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

I have just a final question. I noticed that in the phase one report they talked about contributing factors to the CN mainline derailments as being track and equipment. The primary cause in 37% of the mainline track derailments in which CN was both the track owner and train operator was equipment. That was followed by track--and you've talked about the maintenance of the track--in 27% of those derailments. So that's one thing that just reinforces what you've been talking about.

The other question I have is, from your knowledge.... These audits were done in 2005, and you've had a chance now to read them, to see them?

[Gordon Rhodes]

Yes.