Transport Committee on Feb. 17th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Excuse me. We have Mr. Watson on a point of order.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, I don't believe that it's appropriate to comment on whether members are present or not present. I believe that's out of order.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

I stated very respectfully that Mr. Watson had stepped out for a moment, and with reason. I do not wish to launch a debate. I simply want to tell him that he missed one answer and that I am allowing the witness time in order to provide that answer to him.

It is my hope, Mr. Watson, that you like to be informed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It is ruled a point of order, but I know that it was meant out of respect and to just have the answer repeated.

I will ask the witness to answer the question.

Thank you.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Voilà.

[Nancy Fréchette]

When we use federal railways, we have contractual agreements with the railway companies that require them to respect the Railway Safety Act Regulations. Therefore, based upon what we pay, we are certainly financing a portion of these tasks that serve to ensure that the railway companies are abiding by the regulations. If we are to carry out the same verification work, we will be responsible and accountable, as is presently set out in the bill.

This would mean that there would be an overlap between the management infrastructures. Unfortunately, such infrastructures come with a cost. Given that we are not a for-profit undertaking, a private enterprise, but a publicly-owned corporation, it is taxpayers who will be forced to pay for all of this.

There is also the matter of the value added through this. The act fulfils an objective. This objective will not be met if agencies like ours are included, because we achieve good results in the area of safety. We have a provincial act regarding railway safety. As for the federal laws we fall under, we respect them through contracts. This requirement would therefore be very costly.

You talked about the railway operator certificate, but the requirements pertaining to it are not defined. You mentioned that there might be consultations. As Mr. Kelsey stated, we would have liked there to have been consultations pertaining to Bill C-33, but there were none. Therefore, there is legislation and there are intentions, and we are going to work on what has been proposed.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Thank you, Madam Fréchette.

With regard to safety, has your agency been involved in numerous serious accidents, such that the desire here, among other things, is to double safety inspections?

Mr. Kelsey stated that operations in his region are very safe, that the authorities are satisfied with the results safety-wise in the Vancouver area. The situation seems to be the same in the Toronto area. What about the Montreal region?

[Nancy Fréchette]

As far as AMT is concerned, we have never had to report a single incident involving safety. As I mentioned, 90% of our trains run on federal property track and 10% of them run on our network. To date, we have not had to report a single incident.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Therefore, you view this bill as a kind of useless overlap, given that the safety measures are already in place. Therefore, why double the number of officials enforcing the same rules, when we could be working on improving safety in some other way?

[Nancy Fréchette]

Precisely. There is a safety objective and there are measures. Those actions proposed in the bill do not fulfil that objective. In our view, there is an act in place and there are processes that are working very well. This is why we question accountability and responsibility obligations linked to very costly measures for a government enterprise. In any event, one must wonder at the added value and feasibility for agencies such as ours of involving ourselves in the internal management of the CN and CP railway companies.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Do you share that opinion, Mr. Percy?

[Gregory Percy]

I would agree.

If I may, I'd like to give an example of the UTA, in this case GO Transit, actually even exceeding the standards set out by Transport Canada for safety at level crossings. As GO started to purchase rail corridors, we made the decision to maximize the safety of every level crossing. Transport Canada sets a certain standard based on activity of trains and cars. We said that irrespective of that, we will put lights, bells, and gates on every level crossing we own, and we invested in doing that.

We think that demonstrates good community responsibility and certainly a strong recognition of safety. As a public agency, we feel that's something we have to do. It's not a dollars and cents thing, per se. It's what we think is a level of safety that's appropriate for something we own.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Merci, Monsieur Plamondon.

If I may, just before I recognize my other colleague, you've talked about cost and infrastructure. Do any of you have a ballpark figure?

[Gregory Percy]

I think the dollars are driven off the rigour in the railway operating certificate, and the detail is absent at this point really for us to put a dollar figure on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

So you don't have a figure--you just know that it's going to be an increased cost of something?

[Gregory Percy]

Exactly. We do not have a figure, but the costs will be associated with a heightened level of due diligence compliance inspection.

I think the important thing that we could ask the committee to really understand is that under these circumstances we will go to the class ones and we fully expect them to say they will not show us their inspection and maintenance records because it is frankly none of our business. So we expect that to happen, and that speaks to the point of responsibility versus accountability.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for appearing today. I appreciate that.

I was quite concerned by something that was mentioned earlier. One of the cornerstones of this government's position on bills is to consult widely with the public. I was very concerned by your comments earlier that they didn't consult with any of you. So I immediately talked to the department officials who are here, and they indicated to me particularly the 15 public consultations that were advertised on the Internet and by newspaper around the country: in Ottawa, Montreal, Huntsville, Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Vancouver, Kamloops, Prince George, Saskatoon, Regina, Winnipeg, Montreal, Quebec City, Ottawa, Moncton, St. John, Dartmouth, Halifax. It goes on and on and on about the consultations and the public meetings.

I understood they received 180 written submissions and more than 70 presentations. In fact on March 11, I think AmeriRail and Agence métropolitaine de transport actually appeared at this particular site visit, and again GO Transit in Toronto appeared August 5.

I just want to make sure for the record that people understand that there were public consultations throughout the country, and many of them, and they asked for written submissions.

Now, my question to you would be why you didn't make any presentations or written submissions if indeed you feel that strongly about it, so that we're not here learning about this today instead of some months ago, when the department was drafting that. That would be my question.

Bluntly, I don't want an answer on it, because I don't think it's important. It just tells me frankly that you're complaining about something that, in my mind, you're already required to comply with on federal tracks through a third party, and you don't want to comply with it for whatever reason. I don't really understand, and I would like to know what the costs are that you say you can't comply with because it's too onerous.

I don't understand why we're here today talking about this in this position. We have many high-profile accidents and derailments that have happened across this country, which brings us to this point today and many moves by the ministers to make rail safer. You carry the most precious cargo in the country and you're asking to be exempted from federal regulations because you are already safe. The most precious cargo in the country is passengers, and I don't understand why you wouldn't want that.

You mentioned earlier that it was an extra layer. I don't usually make speeches; at least I try not to. I just want to ask you if you have any problems with the objectives of the act, because the act says:

(a) promote and provide for the safety and security of the public and personnel, and the protection of property and the environment, in railway operations;

Do you have any problem with that?

[Gregory Percy]

Nobody could have a problem with that.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Then:

(b) encourage the collaboration and participation of interested parties in improving railway safety and security;

Do you have any problem with that?

[Gregory Percy]

No.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Then:

(c) recognize the responsibility of companies to demonstrate, by using safety management systems and other means at their disposal, that they continuously manage risks related to safety matters;

Any problem with that?

[Gregory Percy]

Of course not.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

And:

(d) facilitate a modern, flexible and efficient regulatory scheme that will ensure the continuing enhancement of railway safety and security.

Is there any problem with that?

[Gregory Percy]

No, but please—