Evidence of meeting #44 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was train.
A recording is available from Parliament.
April 18th, 2007 / 4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to welcome all the witnesses.
Mayor Desrosiers, I'd like to ask you a very brief question. In your opinion, would the number of accidents that occur in your municipality be reduced to zero if CN reduced the speed to 40 miles/h?
4:40 p.m.
Mayor of Montmagny, As an Individual
Could you repeat the question? I lost a bit at the beginning.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Do you believe all of the existing CN problems would be resolved if trains were to travel 40 miles/h or less?
4:40 p.m.
Mayor of Montmagny, As an Individual
No, that's not what I'm saying.
What I am saying though is—
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Wait a moment, Mr. Mayor.
Are the problems only caused by CN management or could there be other problems that the municipality, the province or other authorities may have some effect on?
4:40 p.m.
Mayor of Montmagny, As an Individual
We said 40 miles/h because the effects of derailment at that speed are far less devastating. No one can say there will never be another accident if trains travel at that speed. Travelling 40 miles/h will not necessarily prevent all accidents, but it will make people feel safer and cause less damage when events like those we've experienced occur, I am sure of this. If E=mc² still stands, if you double the speed, you quadruple the effects.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Anderson, I see Mr. Holliday is taking a quick break, so you're going to have to answer all the rest of the questions.
I want to follow up something raised just a moment ago, because as I was looking through the briefing notes as well, it seems that accidents per million train miles are considerably higher in Canada than in the United States.
Is it because of the definition of accidents that must reported, or is it because the conditions of the track and trains and equipment are so deteriorated in the infrastructure in Canada that these accidents are just begging to happen?
4:40 p.m.
Alternate Canadian Legislative Director, United Transportation Union
The accident—
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I'm sorry, Mr. Anderson, maybe it's unfair to you, but we have a document. I think all members have Library of Parliament research. I'll just give you an example, so you'll know what I'm referring to.
In the year 2006, for example, of 95.6 million train miles in Canada, there were a total of 1,141 accidents, or a ratio of 11.9 per train mile. In the United States, which had 810 million train miles, there were 2,864 accidents, for a ratio of 3.5; so it's 3.5 as opposed to 11.9. It's pretty well been the same going back to 1989, though there have obviously been some variations--some years it's been a little higher, some years a little lower.
Is it because the track and the equipment in Canada are so far gone that accidents are begging to happen, or is it because the definition of accidents, or what is reportable, is so much more strict in Canada that the number of accidents being reported reflects that more difficult standard to meet?
4:45 p.m.
Alternate Canadian Legislative Director, United Transportation Union
With respect to the ratio, I can't in fact answer that. That's a heck of a big difference.
All I can say is that it would have to do with the safety standards applicable, the maintenance standards, the track deterioration.... Not just from my own perspective but from what our colleagues tell us at work, I believe the road bed is deteriorating. Although they seem to spend money on the infrastructure with rail programs, I don't know if a lot of that is fixed to the standards we now have, because they fix them to a minimum standard today. But tomorrow that standard could change; it could be below the minimum standard, whereas at one time in Canada we had very high standards.
That's really unfair to say, because the density of traffic we currently have over those rail lines has probably increased by 15%—
4:45 p.m.
Alternate Canadian Legislative Director, United Transportation Union
Okay, since 1989.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
A voice
I'd like to address this question.
4:45 p.m.
A voice
Sorry.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Desrosiers, I think CN agreed to a temporary speed reduction as a result of your quick response and of community support. That said, I attended a first meeting where that was stated quite clearly and I think that is when they agreed to do something, despite any possible regulation.
You said they are repairing things very quickly in order to increase their speed once again. Would your recommendation of fines for repeat accidents be a way to compel CN to do more prevention?
You also made a recommendation to set 64 km/h as a permanent speed limit. Would it be useful for the committee to support that position until such time as there is a permanent solution, until we can say there is no more danger?
4:45 p.m.
Mayor of Montmagny, As an Individual
One of my objectives in appearing here today was to find out the committee's position.
I think that if we want to get things moving, the rail company needs to feel as though it is under some pressure, that it may lose certain things or certain advantages. In CN's case if we can say there are two or three accidents around Montmagny, it would be good for the committee members to endorse the city's recommendation to reduce the speed to 40 miles/h for the moment to reassure people.
I'm using the example of Montmagny, but not all cities in Canada have experienced 5 derailments, 7 or 8 accidents and 10 fatalities. In fact, Montmagny probably experienced most of these problems despite its small size, with a population of 12,000. So, to reassure people, it would be good to get the committee's support.
In the future, there should some type of legislation to sanction CN rail accidents. This could lead them to have a sharper focus, to ensure more effective equipment maintenance and to be more careful. I think it could help them make improvements. I agree with having audits done, but there should also be some sanctions. We know that CN has consistently challenged the Transportation Safety Board's reports, and continues to do so. We feel there is no solid basis for our discussions with them. So, perhaps this could be included in the legislation.
We could also use the carbon exchange. When there is a spill due to a derailment, CN should get negative points on the exchange. Rail transport should normally protect the environment, but it is disrupting it and disrupting people's peace of mind. CN should be sanctioned under the carbon exchange once it is set up. For the time being, since it has not yet been set up, the committee should make a statement regarding the fact that the municipality of Montmagny has been penalized more so than other cities in Canada.
At the moment, the committee recommends that the speed limit be set at 40 miles/h to reassure people. This is an east-west stretch. If you dismantle the Montmagny bridge, you can't get to Halifax. There is no other route. To go to Halifax, you have to go through Montmagny. There are two rivers, two bridges, and citizens living alongside the rail line. I have been asked why people were allowed to settle there. My reply was that you can't simply rewrite Canadian history. People built houses alongside rivers and rail lines, because those were the means of transportation at the time. You cannot rewrite history. That is how things are and will remain.
I sincerely believe that if companies do not offer the services they had undertaken to offer, it makes sense for them to be sanctioned. This is how things go in the field of communications and in other types of companies. I cannot see why this should not be the case for CN. It is as though the company were shielded from these things, because there is no legislation on this.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
In your second recommendation you say that we should consider building a bypass track. Actually, it is the same as for main streets that used to go through villages. Later on, highways were built.
In the case of Montmagny, does that seem to you to be the main solution we should consider or are you open to other types of solutions, such as permanently decreasing the speed limit, or perhaps other options?
4:50 p.m.
Mayor of Montmagny, As an Individual
Because of the geography and configuration, I don't think that a bypass in Montmagny would be the most economical solution, because the river widens when you go a little bit further south. In a case like Montmagny, the solution would be a reduction in speed, in addition to a commitment from CN to conduct more verifications and analyses. They have removed the switching they had at the station and things like that. That should normally make us safer, but time will tell.
If the geography were more accommodating, a bypass could be an option. In my opinion, railway transportation should develop even more. Since there is no alternative route, we often have to wait to let trains pass. The design is not efficient. If we want to build efficiently, there would have to be double tracks in certain areas to allow for more transportation in Canada.
