Evidence of meeting #45 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was railways.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Luc Bourdon  Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Good afternoon, and welcome back, everyone, to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, December 8, 2010, we are studying Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to the Canada Transportation Act.

Joining us today we have the Honourable Rob Merrifield, Minister of State for Transport.

We welcome you, Minister. I know you've been here before, so you're familiar with the routine. I'll ask you to make your opening comments, and then we'll move to questions and answers.

4:30 p.m.

Yellowhead Alberta

Conservative

Rob Merrifield ConservativeMinister of State (Transport)

I appreciate that very much. I want to introduce Luc Bourdon and Carla White-Taylor from the department. They'll have answers to perhaps some of the technical questions, if we get that deep.

We're certainly pleased to see this piece of legislation move forward and to be able to get to committee.

It's interesting that we chose a day that is the 25th anniversary of a very serious accident that happened in my riding, as 23 passengers and crew died and 95 people were injured when a CN rail train collided with a VIA Rail train in Hinton, Alberta. It impacted the community and the riding a significant amount, so this is actually very fitting that we deal with some of the railway safety issues.

Significant improvements have been made since that time. I'm pleased to be here supporting this piece of legislation, which is Bill C-33. It's not the safety railways act; it's the Safer Railways Act. This new bill I hope will add or amend or make some of the changes that are necessary to be able to achieve a safer railway system. We believe the proposed amendments are essential, and not only essential but also timely. They respond directly to the recommendations of two different important studies on rail safety.

As members of the committee recall, a number of high-profile derailments happened between the years 2005 and 2006, another one in my riding actually, at Lake Wabamun, which I had some first-hand experience with. That was in Alberta. There was also in British Columbia the derailments at Lillooet and Cheakamus, and in Quebec there was one at Montmagny.

All of these raised some shortcomings in the safety system. As I said, I was a first-hand observer of the Wabamun incident. The last estimate was that CN's cleanup and compensation costs for that incident were over $130 million. When an accident happens on rail, it's very costly, in human costs, in financial costs, and very much potentially in environmental costs. So whatever we can do to mitigate these is where we want to go.

These incidents provided an impetus for the Minister of Transport to launch, back in 2006, a review of the Railway Safety Act. The objective was to identify possible gaps in the act and to make recommendations to further strengthen the regulatory regime. The Minister of Transport then tabled the review panel's final report in the House in March 2008, and that contained 56 recommendations to improve rail safety in Canada.

This committee, the Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities, began its own study on rail safety in 2006. It accepted the review panel's recommendation and then actually tabled its own report in the House in May 2008, with 14 recommendations that actually built on those of the Railway Safety Act review.

Both reports identified key areas for improvement and recommended increasing Transport Canada's resources to allow it to strengthen the oversight and enforcement capacity and to implement new safety initiatives. Transport Canada has taken action on those recommendations through a variety of government, industry, and union initiatives, and through the proposed legislative amendments that we're asking for here to the Railway Safety Act. The amendments contained in this bill will further improve railway safety and make it more consistent with legislation on other modes of transportation such as air and marine.

Four key components of the legislation are new powers to crack down on rule-breakers, with tough new monetary penalties as well as increased judicial penalties, to strengthen safety requirements for railway companies, to create whistleblower protection for employees who raise safety concerns, and to require each railway to have an executive legally responsible for safety.

Additionally, railway companies will be required to obtain a safety-based railway operating certificate before they begin or continue to operate. The legislation includes a phased-in approach on the regulatory authority of the government to provide flexibility for smaller short-line railways to have a different risk profile than the large class A railways. And I think that's an important thing to note, not to be too hard on the short lines.

The amendments clarify the authority and the responsibility of the minister with respect to railway matters, stating that the act applies with respect to all railway matters within the legislative authority of Parliament. This will ensure that all companies operating on the federal tracks will be subject to the same high level of safety requirements.

Finally, to protect our natural heritage from potential harm, the importance of the environment and environmental management is also a good part of the emphasis of this piece of legislation. I know that full well when you saw what happened in Lake Wabamun, and let's hope that never happens again. While the amendments allow for the creation of more regulations, it's important to remember that an independent safety review panel recommended such amendments after very thorough research, very thorough consultation and consideration. The government agrees with their recommendations for the items that fall within federal jurisdiction because they will increase public safety of Canadians. It'll contribute to a stronger economy and cleaner environment. The rail industry is the backbone of our economy. Almost 70% of our goods and produce travel on rail. It's part of our historic legacy and should continue to serve Canadians well into the future.

I urge the committee to study the legislation very closely. If minor technical amendments can give more clarity, please bring them to my attention. Notwithstanding any minor amendments, I ask all parties to work together on this piece of legislation. It's really very much in the interests of all Canadians. It's got nothing to do with politics; this is all about safer railways and a culture of changing those safer railways. It's important that we get this piece of legislation through in a prudent manner. I hope the committee will give it its full attention and move it along quickly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. McCallum.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Thank you.

It certainly is our plan on the Liberal side to work diligently on this bill.

My first question is on another matter, which is the rail service review. I thought the final report was supposed to be out by the end of 2010. I gather it's still not out. Could you tell us when it will be out and the source of the delay?

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Merrifield Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Sure, I can give you an indication. It was in English on my desk just prior to Christmas; it's being translated right now. My government is preparing to give a response to the report. It'll be out very soon. I don't have an exact date for you, but I can assure you it will be quickly.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

In a matter of days or weeks or months?

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Merrifield Conservative Yellowhead, AB

I wouldn't say months, but we expect it within a short period of time. I'm not trying to avoid the question; I'm just trying to give you as straight an answer as I know, and we're trying to move it along as quickly as possible.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Another issue has to do with Bill C-33, with local transit authorities operating light rail, subways, or streetcars--for example, GO Transit in Ontario. I understand that C-33 will apply to at least some of these. To the extent that's true, will this new legislation impose additional costs or regulatory burden on outfits like GO Transit? Is that being considered in this legislation?

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Merrifield Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Yes, it is, and that's part of what we're saying, that short lines and smaller operating trains should be regulated and have the burden in accordance with risk. But as far as an operating certificate—that's what your question directly asks—are they going to need one? Yes, they will need one. It seems odd that when it comes to rail safety we would impose a full operating certificate on goods and services but not people as they move. It would be difficult to argue that you shouldn't have an operating certificate and the kinds of things that entails when it comes to GO Transit.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Taking GO Transit as an example, could you say anything to us about the nature or extent of the additional costs that will be imposed?

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Merrifield Conservative Yellowhead, AB

I wouldn't think there's going to be a lot of cost, but maybe I'll pass that question on. It's a little more technical. I'm not aware of what specific costs there might be.

4:40 p.m.

Luc Bourdon Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport

In Bill C-33 we make reference to a regulation that will be developed that will determine the criteria for a railway operating certificate. At the time of developing the regulation we will fully involve all the stakeholders and take into consideration every aspect of their organization. When you're talking about commuter rail, a railway operating certificate will be required by GO Transit, AMT in Montreal, and West Coast Express while they're operating on federal tracks. If they're no longer on federal tracks at any time, they won't require an ROC.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Oh, only on federal tracks.

4:40 p.m.

Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport

Luc Bourdon

While they're operating on CN and CP.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Does GO Train, for example, operate much on federal tracks or is it mainly its own tracks?

4:40 p.m.

Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport

Luc Bourdon

When they're on their own track, obviously, there will be no jurisdiction from Transport Canada; it will be only while they're running on CP or CN.

Presently, we have only the authority to monitor compliance with those railways. For any railways, whether you're talking about urban transit authorities or provincially regulated short lines, we only have an authority while they're running on federal track. But we only have authority to monitor; we don't have any authority to take any enforcement. So when something goes wrong, we have to impose the enforcement measure on the host railway. Most of the time CN and CP then have to deal with the provincial authority to get the problem resolved.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Thank you.

I have another question. I was talking with a teamsters representative today who mentioned that one of the Canadian railways was thinking of or planning on moving its rail traffic control operation into the United States. He made the point that this would reduce the regulatory power over such operations if they were in the United States and remove jobs from Canada, and also his point was that the Americans would not allow their rail traffic control people to be based in Canada. So the questions is this. Would you be open to an amendment that would require rail traffic control to be located in Canada?

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Merrifield Conservative Yellowhead, AB

I guess I'd respond that if the case can be made that it's a safety issue—and I believe that's where Americans are on it—then I think we should take a look at that. If it's an issue of just where somebody dispatches and there's not a safety concern, then you'd have a tough argument.

I invite the committee to take a look at it and give us your best information and recommendation on that.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Okay.

I have one last question, and you may not be able to answer this because I know it's not your department, but it is a transport issue.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Merrifield Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Let me give it a try.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Okay.

I'm quite concerned. We've had reports about an apparently large reduction in the number of air marshalls travelling on airplanes, which seems to me might potentially have implications for air security and also have implications for Canada's reputation in other countries, if we radically reduce that program and they don't.

Can you comment on that?

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Merrifield Conservative Yellowhead, AB

All I can say is that's public safety--it's not transport--so I'm a little hesitant to get into it. Suffice it to say that where the risk dictates, air marshalls will continue.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

All right. I guess we'll have to wait for Mr. Toews on that one.

Thank you very much.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Thank you.

Just for the advice of the committee, too, I have signed off on a draft letter asking Minister Strahl to provide us with a copy of that report. I understand it is in translation and—

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Merrifield Conservative Yellowhead, AB

Of the...?