Transport Committee on Feb. 17th, 2011

[Nancy Fréchette]

Indeed, the bill would hold AMT responsible before Transport Canada of the host companies, which implies a weighty obligation and also represents a duplication of the railway safety work already being done.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Percy, is the situation the same in Toronto?

[Gregory Percy]

Yes, it is, although we have an excellent working relationship with Transport Canada. We don't need to change the relationship to make it work; it's working very well today. And whether it's through the class one railways or in some cases, as pointed out by Doug Kelsey, that Transport Canada works directly with us today, it works very well. So, again, our view would be don't change something that already works.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Kelsey, in Vancouver, what do you think of Bill C-33?

[Doug Kelsey]

I'm of the belief, as others have already commented, that, again, it's not required. I think we've all tried to approach our business as if the taxpayer were sitting in the room with us as we conduct our business. What is reasonable and appropriate? Looking at this legislation, very clearly, in the definition of an “urban transit authority”, if I look in Vancouver, by our own provincial legislation we also have responsibility for roads, for bridges. Even at the commuter rail, we have parking lots. We have all kinds of technical things that I think are even beyond the contemplation of what the definition of UTA might be within this legislation.

I think also, specifically, that you also do not want multiple regulators, whether provincial or federal, dealing with somewhat similar interfacing responsibilities. I think what's really important here is we do not want to harm our relationship with the class one railways. It's very important in an operating sense. And we're quite comfortable through and with Transport Canada to continue this relationship. To Mr. Percy's comments earlier, I think we're all very proud of our leadership relationship with Transport Canada, and we really want that to continue, but it doesn't mean you need regulation to accomplish this.

In my mind, legislation should be indicative, in the case of urban transit authorities, that all other avenues have been exhausted. And I would suggest MOUs have not been attempted, other practices have not.... If there are things that are missing, we should absolutely further that conversation, but legislation, in my mind, as it relates to us, should be absolutely a last and needed option. So I'm very supportive of the positions of both Ms. Fréchette and Mr. Percy.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Merci, monsieur.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

And thanks to the witnesses for coming today.

I see you have some very important issues surrounding this particular legislation. I would really appreciate it if you could present those arguments in written form at some point in time to us in committee, so that we can examine them in more detail. This is something that I think would be really helpful.

[Gregory Percy]

We actually did provide a technical paper much more substantial than my speaking notes, in French and English, which we'd be happy to give you another copy of.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Okay, thanks very much.

Basically, when you're talking about regulation within the urban transit authority, how does it divide between municipal, provincial, and federal government right now?

[Gregory Percy]

The municipalities are more.... They are not in terms of railway regulation; they are more involved in terms of the railroads as interfacing with communities, in terms of adhering to municipal guidelines in terms of how we build certain things. It's mainly—

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

For instance, level crossings?

[Gregory Percy]

Fences, level crossings, that kind of thing, graffiti, garbage, things like that. Those are important neighbourhood issues, as I would call them.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

They are huge safety issues as well. We see most of the deaths that are occurring in relationship to railways right now are occurring because of access and level-crossing issues.

[Gregory Percy]

That's true.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Is that the same for Canadian urban transit authorities?

[Gregory Percy]

I would say it's the same for the railway industry in North America. By definition, railways are porous. You can argue this one at length, but right to the land use planning, if you put a school on one side of the tracks and a strip mall on the other, kids take the shortest distance between two points.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Okay. Where do the standards come for those things for the urban transit authorities?

[Gregory Percy]

Transport Canada has certain standards, and we certainly follow those. There are specific engineering standards through AREMA, the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association, which is a North American-accepted engineering standards association. We adhere to those.

So we already adhere to—

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

And a municipality, does it set standards in terms of where you can provide access--and where you don't provide access, where you might provide pedestrian overpasses, where you might do fencing?

[Gregory Percy]

They are stakeholders to that, yes. They get involved in setbacks, that kind of thing, for fencing and structures.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

So you'd say that if the municipality is doing that, then the standards are not the same across the country?

[Gregory Percy]

Some are.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Is there a best practice?

[Gregory Percy]

Absolutely there are, and I would say the freight, the inter-city passenger train, and commuter train all take the high road and adhere to the higher standard because it's good business to do that. But they may vary across Canada; I can't really speak to that that well.

But I did just want to speak to the difference between provincial and federal. Certainly the Province of Ontario does not regulate railways itself. They actually have an agreement with Transport Canada to regulate on their behalf. That's specific to short lines and freight railways, and commuter as well.

Commuter is different. I'll give you an example. With GO Transit, GO actually owns, and in April will own 61% of its rail corridor, and is deemed unregulated. This Bill C-33 deals, for us, with the other 39%, which is where we run over CN or CP.