Evidence of meeting #46 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 track.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
I have two things I can say. First, no railway under strictly federal jurisdiction that does not operate on federal tracks will be subject to Bill C-33.
But your shortlines, which only operate on tracks under federal jurisdiction, will in no way be subject to it. Only railways under provincial jurisdiction that operate on federal tracks will be subject to Bill C-33.
The reason they won't be exempted…
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Wait a minute. You used the word "federal" at least twice. Can you repeat that?
February 10th, 2011 / 3:50 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
Sure. Shortlines under provincial jurisdiction that operate only on provincial tracks will be completely excluded from Bill C-33. They won't be affected.
3:50 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
The only ones that will be affected are shortlines under provincial jurisdiction that operate on federal tracks. At that time, they will need to have an operating certificate whenever they are on federal tracks.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Who will be responsible? My riding is home to the first shortline in the history of Quebec—the Murray Bay line—which was operated by CN, very neglected by CN, and almost abandoned by CN. The Murray Bay line started in Limoilou, in the outskirts of Quebec City, and went to Clermont, in Charlevoix. When the Quebec government adopted legislation for the shortlines, it was the first in Quebec.
That's not the problem, because the Société des chemins de fer du Québec inc. bought the track. I'll give an example. If this shortline operated on a line that still belonged to CN, but it was given permission to use it… Are you with me?
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
In that kind of situation, who would be responsible for the costs incurred: the owner of the line, of the track, or the operator?
3:50 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
It depends on the contract established between the two. If CN is no longer using the entire line and it rents it instead of selling it, it will depend more on a clause in the contract than on a clause in the bill. If CN says that it will continue to own the line and maintain it, but that someone is operating on that line, at that point, it would be CN who would be responsible for the maintenance.
I want to answer the question that you asked: why were they not exempted? One of the things that the panel heard from some of the people responsible for these commuter trains is that they wanted to be able to establish their own rules with the minister, and they wanted to request exemptions to the existing rules.
At the moment, they must conform to the rules of Canadian Pacific and Canadian National. In some cases, they determined that these rules were inadequate. They came to see me and said that they wanted an exemption to that kind of rule. We had to respond that, since their railway was not under federal jurisdiction, they could not request an exemption or establish their own rules, and they would have to negotiate with CN and CP, who had to agree to present an exemption to us. In a lot of these cases, this didn't happen.
One of the reasons we included them was to allow them to be able to make their own rules. That's what they asked the panel for and it's also what they have asked me for in the past, particularly AMT.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
So, what can you tell me, exactly, about AMT?
What type of track does AMT operate on in Montreal?
3:50 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
AMT mostly operates on CN and CP tracks, except for in the north, from the crossing in Blainville to Saint-Antoine or Saint-Jérôme. That is their property. It belongs to them. So, we don't meddle with it. We don't concern ourselves with that section.
When they go south, toward Montreal, and get to the Blainville crossing on Seigneurie Boulevard, they are operating on railway tracks that belong to Canadian Pacific.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
So, Canadian Pacific could re-open the contract—perhaps this wasn't anticipated—and CP could say that they are operating on its paid track. When you get down to it, we know who is going to pay.
3:50 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
Mr. Guimond, I could say that they can do it now if they want, despite Bill C-33. Canadian Pacific and Canadian National could announce at any time that they are changing the contract made with the other and that this is how they are going to do it. The bill makes no provision for that.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
You're familiar with the safety report on Wabamun?
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
A major spill occurred there. We're also looking at the potential for increased traffic through that area.
Would the amendments proposed in this bill help prevent another accident like Wabamun? How would they do that?
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
Wabamun was a track-related derailment, and if I remember, it occurred on August 3, 2005, and it was 800,000 litres of bunker C oil and 88,000 litres of pole-treating oil. When we talk about some of the recommendations we dealt with that were formulated in this report under chapter 8, we are being asked to come up with a protocol to deal with goods that are not considered dangerous goods as per the act but are dangerous to the environment.
That is the case in Lake Wabamun. If you compare Lake Wabamun, which happened on August 3, and Cheakamus, which happened on the 5th, two days later, caustic soda was involved in Cheakamus, which was under what we call the TDG Act, and therefore the response plan kicked in right away. It did not kick in right away in Wabamun because the temperature at which the liquid was being transported was not a dangerous good.
We want to put something in place now that will take into consideration all those substances that are not under the TDG Act but can be harmful to the environment, and have the same type of emergency plan that would occur if a derailment like that happened.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
How do the amendments to this bill change your ability to do that?
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
The first thing is that under proposed section 47 of the bill you will see that the railways would have to file environmental plans with Transport Canada. They would be audited by us and be included in the safety management system.
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
This is where we would find the provision and the authority to be able to measure that and take some enforcement action, which we don't have at this time.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
What about just generally, in terms of derailments? How does this bill reduce the potential for derailments in the system? Is it simply that you have a better toolbox to work with? Is there any sense that--
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
First of all, as the minister mentioned on Tuesday, we've been very fortunate to get $44 million for our program, which equates to 56 more people joining rail safety, so we're going to have a lot more inspectors out there. We're going to have some enforcement officers. We're going to have some analysts, an outreach coordinator. We're going to have a lot more people than we had before in order to do more monitoring.
We're also going to have extra tools, such as the administrative monetary penalties, which we didn't have before. We could impose operational restrictions if there was an immediate risk. When there was non-compliance, we usually either asked the railway to fix the situation or we prosecuted them, which was very expensive and very lengthy. The administrative monetary penalty will allow us to fine an individual up to $50,000 and the company up to $250,000, so we'll have more tools.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
I'm trying to understand exactly how these administrative penalties will act. I see in the book here...you penalize somebody for inaction and they pay the penalty, or for a lack of action on a particular safety issue, fixing a track or doing whatever you decide on.
Where is the compliance?
