Thank you.
Thank you, gentlemen, for coming. I appreciate the comments you've made.
Mr. Chudnovsky, I have a couple of questions about the material you presented. One of the issues you addressed is a concern of mine. I asked CN about it, but we didn't have a chance to get an answer at that point. It was the issue of dynamic brakes. The B.C. Rail engines had them, but I don't know where the B.C. engines went. I understand they were disposed of or moved away. The few engines that had dynamic brakes were disabled, or are no longer in service for some reason. The feeling--certainly of Mr. Rhodes--is that had dynamic brakes been available on his engine, perhaps his two co-workers would still be alive.
That's the difference you referenced in your presentation between a water-grade railway and railways in B.C., with the radiuses and inclines we have. I think the most recent accident involved 13 miles, I think they said, at 2.5% grade, which is substantial.
What concerns me is some of the other practices I saw in the report. They're not only in British Columbia, but they're magnified when they're in British Columbia. For example, track patrols had been reduced. There was one example given to us of where a track had been hit by a rock and misaligned. The engineer, through skilful handling, was able to get 27 cars over the joint before there was a minor derailment, and he had slowed down. So the track patrols concern me.
The other is the notices and orders. There were 99 outstanding when this report was done in November 2005, and I think 24 of them went back to 2000 or earlier. I find it incongruous that they weren't addressed, when we're dealing with these kinds of things.
Another issue is bad orders. I think 75% of the inspectors said it was not uncommon for the tag to be taken off a car and the car put back in.
The other issue is the use of U.S. standards for both the engines and cars. The most convenient standard seemed to be the one that was favoured, for the most part. I understand that when they're running an operation between the U.S. and Canada it's sometimes difficult to make those distinctions, but the witnesses--even the vice-presidents of CN who were here--acknowledged that for the most part Transport Canada regulations are stricter. There are some in the States they say are stricter, but for the most part Transport Canada regulations are stricter.
On the two issues identified in the reports as the major causes of accidents, one was the equipment, the rolling stock; and the other was the track conditions, the maintenance of the tracks. I've heard some suggestions here.
My concern is obviously the workers' safety and the public's safety in the area where a train derails. There are examples, in the States in particular and here, of derailments with hazardous chemicals that have put the public at risk. There was one incident in Mississauga years ago, and others since then, such as Hinton.
The other issue is the environment, like in the Cheakamus River, where the fish stock might be damaged for 20 or 30 years.
Then there's movement of goods and services--the imports and exports that this country relies on. With the Pacific gateway and the growth of the Asia-Pacific market--China and India in particular--it's important that we have the ability to keep these trains moving to serve the ports and the trucking industry so we can have an efficient economic system.
So the whole issue of safety is extremely important, which is why this committee undertook this inquiry. We're interested in safety in air, water, and rail. Rail was one of the issues because of the high number of incidents in 2005, and the high-profile incidents.
You've heard some of the testimony and you've had the chance to review the testimony from the other individuals. You've made one suggestion, Mr. Cotie, about mandatory track slow-down orders. The records don't seem to be available as to when those were involved. We've heard about the others.
Mr. Cotie, is it practical for workers to move away from the track when they see a train coming so it doesn't have to slow down as much?
To Mr. Kosinski or Mr. Chudnovsky, do you have some recommendations that this committee could make in dealing with the issues of regulations and legislation? I know one of the suggestions is that we put more teeth into the Railway Safety Act, much like the Aeronautics Act has, for accountability and responsibility.
Maybe Mr. Cotie, and then back over to Mr. Chudnovsky.