Transport Committee on April 30th, 2007

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Cotie, very quickly, what are your feelings about what's happened with the railway safety review and the 76 enforcement actions taken by this government?

[Todd Cotie]

I actually applaud this committee, because we've been conveniently tucked away in the middle of nowhere for years and we haven't had a lot of press. Nobody was really concerned with the railway unless you had a derailment in Cobourg that was in somebody's backyard. You don't see the derailments in northern Quebec or northern Ontario, which absolutely no one sees. You don't see workers go into these places to fix the rail, and they're up for 24 hours to try to correct the situation. They have no real medical facilities. They're overtired and fatigued. They work 10 days away from home, they're back for four days, and things like that.

There are a lot of things that can be done. I think being here is a good step in the right direction.

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

Mr. Cotie, to be clear, the minister is the only one who issued the enforcement actions or, through the department, sent those enforcement actions. He's the one who ordered the review of the Railway Safety Act. What do you think about what his review has done, or his order has done?

[Todd Cotie]

I'm not completely familiar with the review, but I know this is a good step in the right direction. The more we can investigate and maybe add regulations to the railway or recommendations that go in that direction, the more beneficial it is.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Zed has generously given his time to Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I note that whenever you introduce me, it's always because somebody else is being kind to me. I'm hoping the kindness flows from the committee's work rather than anything else.

Mr. Cotie, I noted your response to Mr. Jean's question. You must have been elated when the previous government, the Minister of Transport, asked for exactly that. But the report wasn't released, and you must have been confused. If you're excited about another investigation getting started without the reports of the first one or indeed the second one, you must be seriously holding your breath.

While you grapple with the response, let me ask Mr. Kosinski this, because he didn't have a chance to answer my question when I was last up.

When you look at some of the causes, I know everybody's been focused on B.C., and that's fair. But this committee is trying to grapple with safety management systems and safety in railways. It must be scratching its collective head about why Canadian Pacific and VIA Rail don't have the same rate of accidents.

[George Kosinski]

Well, with VIA Rail, it's pretty understandable. The equipment is much lighter and the trains are much shorter. It's primarily the explanation for lower accidents on VIA Rail trains. Of course, the longer a train is, the heavier it is, and the more likely it is to have an accident.

As to why, if you're suggesting that CN has a lot more derailments than CP, I can only speculate as to what the reason might be. Perhaps for some reason CP has a more serious regard for maintaining a suitable safety margin in train operations. I can only speculate with regard to that.

I think there are a couple of important points about discipline procedures that need to be addressed now.

When Mr. Watson was speaking with Mr. Cotie, I suddenly remembered that at one time I was disciplined because it was 30⁰ to 40⁰ below zero, and I had to open a switch to do some switching in the yard. When it's that cold, quite often the only way you can get the switch to open is to kick the handle on the switch stand. I did it all that time. Everybody did it all the time. There would be no trains running if you didn't do that when it's 30⁰ below zero.

On this particular occasion, I injured myself. I reported the injury because I thought I might have cracked a rib. I wanted to be sure I had put in an injury report in case I had to take time off from work, which it turned out I didn't have to do. But I was called in for an investigation and awarded demerits for having injured myself by kicking the switch stand.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

And that wouldn't happen now?

[George Kosinski]

I have no idea. I haven't worked since 1989.

But at the time I was working, if I was called for a trip and I didn't want to make it because I felt unfit, it was basically no big deal. I worked a lot. I always worked when they wanted me and I felt that I was fit, which was most of the time. The scheduling procedure is guesswork: you're expecting to go to work at a certain time, and it turns out you're going in much earlier or much later; you don't get enough sleep, and so on. Whenever I booked off a trip because I simply didn't feel fit to make the trip, it was no problem.

What I've heard from some people I know who are still working for CN is that now harsh discipline is imposed for refusing a trip when your turn comes up. If that's the case, that in itself would be a serious issue regarding safety--essentially forcing employees to go to work when they don't feel fit to do so.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

That raises a different question for me.

I want to attribute all the credit where it's due, but I don't want to allocate negative responsibility where it might not be. I think maybe one of my other colleagues around the table suggested that there might be a level of...I don't want to say indifference--call it tolerance, but very difficult tolerance, on the part of the CN management team for Transport Canada regulations, inasmuch as CN no longer calls itself Canadian National, given that its administrative structure is located in the United States, by and large. Its primary concern is that it operate within the regulations dictated by its American operations, and as a result—and I suppose Mr. Chudnovsky might agree here—some of the safety practices of, let's say, B.C. Rail went a little bit by the wayside once the infrastructure at the managerial level was transferred to an operation that no longer considers itself Canadian.

I realize that now we're going into an area, as you put it, of speculation or ideology or national interest, but I'm interested in your observation. You've talked to the membership and people who are employed by an organization that was employed by somebody else before.

[David Chudnovsky]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have just two quick responses to Mr. Volpe's question.

First of all, on the issue of scheduling, I wanted to report to the committee that Mr. Kosinski's comments have been confirmed to me by people who I spoke to. On the issue of scheduling when people are tired, and discipline connected to it, I got the same reports.

On the issue of how we explain the result that we see, it is speculation. I certainly don't know what goes on in the heads of CN senior management, but having said that, we had a situation in which the people of British Columbia owned and operated a railway, and now it's owned and operated by somebody else. Things have changed. You have to try to draw some conclusions from that change in reality.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Storseth, you can have a final question.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for coming forward today and for your wealth of information.

One of the things on which I would like to have a little bit more discussion is the length of the cars. We understand that speed is definitely a mitigating factor here. Do you consider the length of the cars and the weight of the cars to be very significant factors, as well? If so, is there a level of importance? Is one more important than the other when it comes to the safety issues that are being discussed?

[George Kosinski]

I don't think the weight of the cars is necessarily a significant issue as long as the track is in good condition. If there is a rail defect, of course, the heavier the train rolling over it, the more likely it is to fail.

Aside from that consideration, I would say that the length of the train itself is a far more serious problem, for two specific reasons. One is the problem with streamlining that apparently you mentioned in your report: a train tends to want to straighten out the curves, and the longer the train, the greater that streamlining effect. When a derailment is caused by streamlining, of course the longer the train, the more likely that is to occur.

Another problem with train length actually also relates to some extent with the issue of dynamic braking. It is that many trains are poorly marshalled. For purely safety considerations, the ideal way to run a mixed train is with all the loads marshalled ahead of all of the empties, because it's the best way to minimize excessive slack action. Again, excessive slack action is itself a dangerous condition. When you have a mixed train, the longer the train, the more difficult it is to control that excessive slack action. Of course, a simple solution would be to insist that any train leaving a major terminal have all the loads marshalled ahead of the empties.

With respect to excessive slack action, dynamic braking is an extremely valuable tool in controlling train speed, but it also has an ancillary effect in helping to reduce slack action, because if you're going down a grade and you're completely controlling the train just with your dynamic braking and perhaps an occasional minimum application of the train brakes, then the train stays bunched and there is essentially no slack action occurring. However, when you don't have dynamic brakes, you have to first of all, before you can even apply the brakes, stretch it out, so that when you do apply the brakes, you don't suffer severe slack action that may cause a derailment. Then once you've applied the brakes, eventually it smooths out, and now there is no slack action.

Then, if you have to increase the brake pressure.... Of course, once you release the brakes, all that slack action will start to happen again, with the possible exception of unit trains, but on some cars the brakes release faster than on other cars, so you're getting all that slack action activity. Dynamic braking is also of tremendous assistance in controlling excessive slack action.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

And thank you, gentlemen, for your presentations today and your answers to the questions. As was stated, safety is what we're trying to deal with here, and we do appreciate your comments. Thank you.

Committee members, we're going to take a two-minute recess while our guests leave, and then we'll come back to Mr. Fast's motions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Welcome back.

As you know, when we left the last meeting there was some discussion around a motion by Mr. Fast. I know there has been some discussion among the members.

I think everyone is aware of the motion that's before us. Is everyone comfortable on what it is, or do I need to read it?

I know that Mr. Volpe had some comments, and then I'll go to Mr. Julian.

Go ahead, Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take up much more of the committee's time on this.

The title here, “Notice of Amendment to Motion”, might cause some questions of concern for people, but really this is an amendment--I hope it will be considered a friendly amendment--to the motion that Mr. Fast has on the table. The intention is to draw attention to the fact that irrespective of what this committee might offer as an opinion, the minister still must do something that's very specific and required under parliamentary procedure and under the act.

What this does is say, look, you can clarify what Mr. Fast would like to have clarified by what it says under section B. Secondly, you can do it with the issuance of a directive to Canada Post. And in the interim, under section D, it protects everybody until this issue gets resolved.

There are people who have businesses and there are employees who depend on those businesses. There is Canada Post and its dependants. Irrespective of what they might do or might not do, the fact of the matter is that they're in a position where they can put a lot of people out on the street. Section D says this is the way to prevent that from happening while this thing gets resolved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think this is another reason not to finalize any decision today.

Mr. Fast's motion has been brought forward a number of times. The members around this table have said very clearly that they'd prefer to get more information. They're concerned about the impact on rural mail delivery. We have put that position forward. Mr. Fast keeps bringing his motion back, so obviously he hasn't heard.

The amendment from Mr. Volpe may well be helpful, but I would like to take some time; it's very detailed. I'm sure Mr. Volpe has done his due diligence. I would like the time to do the same.

So I would hope that we do not consider the motion or the amendment today, and that we instead give members of the committee time to consider particularly the amendment and look at its implications before we go to any decision on the matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

In the case of Mr. Volpe’s amendment, there is a 48-hour notice. We need time to discuss it. About Mr. Fast’s motion, my position is still the same. If we are to call Canada Post and the remailers, I would be pleased to discuss this motion. If we have to vote on the motion today, as I have had no opportunity to seek the required answers from Canada Post and the remailers, I would have to vote against it but I will not obstruct the proceedings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Just for the information of the committee, because the motion is on the floor, and it comes back at the request of a member, we do not need a 48-hour notice of motion. This is an amendment to a motion that's on the floor.

That's more for the record than anything else.

Mr. Jean.

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

Mr. Chair, we did receive a fax of a letter from Canada Post Corporation in respect of this particular notice of motion. I'm wondering if all members have received a copy of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I suspect they haven't. I did receive it, and we have sent it out for translation so that I can table it with the committee.

I have Mr. Fast and then Monsieur Bélanger.