Transport Committee on Feb. 15th, 2011

[John Marginson]

Absolutely. VIA has been working with its safety management system since about 1998. So certainly after almost 13 years of working with safety management systems we see the value of that approach. Obviously we would be more inclined to go in that direction.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

If I recall correctly, I think the rail safety review report, on a scale of one to five, five being the best, ranked the safety culture at VIA at a four. I appreciate your comments on that.

Mr. Wilson.

[Glen Wilson]

I was just going to add, Mr. Watson, that the safety management system has a number of other components, including the requirement to involve employees, that I think facilitate a non-punitive reporting system within that regime. We want to encourage employees to identify hazards, also a requirement of the safety management system, and work within the system that exists, not undermine or confuse by directing them to other processes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

With respect to the proximity issues and municipal planning, you've made some proposals over this. If you were given this requirement to be consulted, how do you expect to use your new powers, if you will?

[Cliff Mackay]

Not dissimilarly to exactly how it works now in the aeronautics world. In the aviation world there is a requirement for municipalities and others to advise if there's a development within a certain proximity to an airport. That is exactly what we're hoping will happen here. The important thing here is early notification. If you as a railway are operating in a particular area and you find out early that somebody wants to build a 30-storey condo 150 metres from a railway yard operation, you want to deal with that issue early.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Or a school for that matter.

[Cliff Mackay]

Or a school. You want to deal with that early, not when you see those construction cranes going up, because that's when all the problems start. So this is an opportunity to try to deal with it early. The only jurisdiction in Canada that has some reporting requirements at the moment is Ontario.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. McCallum.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for being here.

I happened to meet the president of GO Transit earlier today. The public transit people are somewhat concerned about the heavy cost of this new regulatory regime in cases where their trains go on CN or CP track. Do you have a view on that?

[Cliff Mackay]

Our view is to support their concerns, and I should say to you, sir, that they are members of the RAC. I know they are appearing later this week on their own behalf, but I'll let my colleague speak to whether or not it is a real issue for us. It is an issue for the commuters, we believe. I'm not sure it's at the same level of concern with other operators.

Perhaps, Paul, you may want to speak to that.

[Paul Miller]

Mr. McCallum, the commuters operate very, very safely now. They have a tremendous safety record. We find that the way we interact with the commuters and Transport Canada is quite satisfactory now. However, if the committee, in its wisdom, wants to change that approach a little bit in the legislation, we're sure that would work fine as well.

I'll just echo Mr. Mackay's comments that they'll be there to speak for themselves. And they would have a much better opinion of it than I.

[Glen Wilson]

I'll just echo very quickly what Mr. Miller said, Mr. McCallum, and that is the willingness to work within either system.

I understand Transport Canada's objectives.They don't want to have to deal as often through the class 1 railways that are under federal jurisdiction to deal with issues relating to commuters. I understand where they're coming from, but either system is perfectly able to be worked within from a national freight railway standpoint.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

The second issue is railway crossings. As one who's relatively new to this, at least on first impression I think what you say seems to make a lot of sense. Railway crossings do have a lot to do with safety. Safety should be a factor where new ones are constructed. There should be more vigorous action to close down existing ones. It all seems to make eminent sense.

I guess my question is this. If it's all so sensible, why has it not already happened in more than a hundred years? You said there are multiple jurisdictions. You said you've consulted many stakeholders. When something that seems so obviously a good idea has not happened for many decades, there must be a reason. What are the obstacles to this?

[Cliff Mackay]

I'm not sure, sir, that I would say there are specific obstacles. I think what has happened over time is that the country has grown topsy-turvy. We all know about urban sprawl and all that sort of thing. There's been any number of other issues that have occupied peoples' minds. This thing has just grown up over the years.

In the old days, it wasn't a big issue if a farmer wanted to put a crossing across. Trains operated at very low speeds. We had nowhere near the frequencies we have today. Today there are over 1,200 trains a day moving in Canada. We've now got an issue because of the densities and the speeds that didn't exist in the past.

Our friends south of the border, to their credit, have run a much more aggressive program than we have run here in the last 10 years, and it has made a difference in the numbers.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Can you establish a definite relationship, suggesting that if we had so many fewer railway crossings, we'd have so many fewer accidents?

[Cliff Mackay]

Yes, there is a correlation. The experience in the U.S. is very clear. As they have significantly reduced the number of crossings, or improved the existing crossings in terms of safety, they have seen a reduction in fatalities and injuries at crossings.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

One last question. As an economist, the idea that you don't like the notion of highest safety level makes sense to me. How does one measure that? What does that mean? Interpreted literally, the highest safety would occur if the trains never moved.

[Cliff Mackay]

Exactly.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I'm not quite sure how that would be interpreted. Also, you point out that it's inconsistent with the Canada Transportation Act. So how do you define “highest safety level”?

[Cliff Mackay]

The way we define it today--and I'll ask my colleagues to speak to this--is through an SMS system. That's why we use “practicable” as opposed to “highest”. It is the highest practicable level of safety. We define it through a series of risk assessments and practices, and we measure against that performance over time. The objective of the exercise is to constantly drive down the incidence with regard to safety. So it's defined relatively, sir, not absolutely.

I've asked my colleagues to speak to it.

[Glen Wilson]

Mr. McCallum, the point you made hit the nail right on the head. The interpretation of it is left wide open. Certainly some would argue, and it's an extreme example, that the highest level of safety is attained by not moving a train.

What we're really looking for is, first of all, consistency. It's in the Canada Transportation Act, which Mr. Mackay alluded to. The standard for highest practicable level of safety is understood, because it's in another piece of legislation. It incorporates the inherent nature of a railway operation, which is that you will be moving trains. Within that, the safety management system requires us to manage the associated risks.

That's the reason, really, for our position. I certainly appreciate your comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Before I recognize Monsieur Gaudet, I have a question about the railway crossings. I have producers who have a railway that splits their property in half. If you close that crossing, they may have to travel 10, 12, or 15 miles to access one. Is that part of the problem?

[Cliff Mackay]

It could be part of the problem, Mr. Chair. But in that particular case, that's probably not a crossing that would be up for closing. It's too onerous.

On the other hand, we have lots of situations where you have five or ten private crossings, in a very short length of track, that frankly are hardly ever used. You could easily accommodate local traffic through some other means.

[John Marginson]

In fact, in some of the situations we've seen, the same dwelling has three or four crossings--the same dwelling. They are very willing to close a couple or three of those crossings, as long as they have easy access to and from the dwelling.