Evidence of meeting #55 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
In any case, they surely misunderstood something. You're telling me that they do not understand. Perhaps it's that you explained some things poorly or that they did not understand. This is what you are saying.
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
Mr. Laframboise, I was told certain things. I was told that we were going to start regulating ticket-vending machines and parking lots. We have been regulating VIA Rail for ages, but we have never set foot in the parking lots. We have never gone to see ticket-vending machines. To be quite honest, I don't know where these things may come from. We aren't concerned with those things.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
But those are not impossible things either, since they... It is not out of the question that you would deal with things like that either.
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
The way we operate is by taking risks. The real risk is whether the train will stay on the tracks or not. Between you and me, the parking areas, the ticket machines...
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
But the problem is that this is a bill on safety. If you get a complaint, you will have to do something about it. That is why they already have a jurisdiction to which... Anyway, I am really...
4:05 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
That's currently the case for all railways under provincial jurisdiction in the country. They are all going to say that they already have a jurisdiction that governs their operations. Yet, no one came to ask us... Some even told us that this is a good thing.
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Since they are opposed to it, I am going to keep my amendment . You just haven't convinced me.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This comes to one of the most interesting meetings we had here, I think. If these transit authorities operated on 100% provincial track, this wouldn't be a matter considered under legislation.
We heard in testimony, I think, that the average of federal track usage was about 90%. I believe the witness from Quebec said they operate 95% on federal track. GO, I think, was the lowest we heard, at about 60% federal track use and 40% provincial.
So if I understand this correctly, they're only accountable to the province on provincial track, and not on federal track. On federal track when they're operating, they prefer to have their contractual relationship with CN and CP as their means of accountability rather than directly to the federal government.
I know that Mr. Laframboise was part of the review this committee did on rail safety, which was done simultaneously while the minister's rail safety review was being undertaken. That rail safety report ultimately came out from the expert panel. I think Mr. Laframboise will recall that CN, on their culture of safety, was rated one out of five, one being the worst and five being the best. CP was rated at two out of five.
Now, I don't know about Mr. Laframboise, but I don't feel comfortable with anybody preferring a contractual relationship with two railroads that don't rank better than a two out of five, instead of being directly accountable to Transport Canada.
The other curious argument raised by the transit authorities in their testimony was that they enjoy their relationship with Transport Canada, but somehow, when I asked why not just simply shorten the relationship and make it direct, well, they didn't really have a compelling argument; they just preferred that arrangement.
So if we're going to take a step forward with respect to safety...and quite frankly, if they already think they're compliant anyway through their contracts with CN and CP, I don't see why there's an issue with them directly coming under federal regulation. Compliance won't be an issue, or shouldn't be an issue.
There wasn't, in my estimation, any compelling testimony given why they should not; they just seemed to have a preference for not being regulated additionally by the federal government.
As I think Mr. Bourdon has said, if an issue occurs on a federal track, I think the public will ask why the transit authority wasn't directly accountable to Transport Canada. They're going to look to the federal government and say, “What happened?” So I think the responsible step forward is the way the legislation has been presented here in the bill to bring them under that authority.
That's just a bit of background commentary on what happened at the particular meeting.
March 10th, 2011 / 4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
There's one thing in this that to me is kind of complicated. I see two liabilities here. I see the liability of the track and the right-of-way, and I see the liability of the operator and the machinery that goes on the track. So my challenge is this: have you separated that, or is the obligation...for instance, the obligation on the track and right-of-way owned by the rail company? Do they assume the obligation of those who travel on their track that they have to have safe equipment to go on that track?
With that, as Mr. Laframboise was saying, if that's the case, that it's the one who owns the track and the right-of-way who should be the ones who secure the operator, if they take their running licence from their transit authority to say that it's safe, would that be acceptable?
I guess I'm having a challenge separating those two burdens of liability and in the act. Have you separated that?
4:10 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
The railway operating certificate will be defined by regulation. The regulation will clearly define the way it's going to be laid out and what they need to have in place.
There's already a provision under proposed paragraph 17.9(1)(c) that allows us to exempt persons or class of railway from the operating certificate. So there's already a possibility that if, for whatever reason, depending on what is being brought before us, we could say a certain class of railway.... For instance, maybe urban transit authorities do not need to have a railway operating certificate because we do have a level of confidence that they're operating very safely. On the other hand, the rest of the act would apply.
As Mr. Watson said, when some of the urban transit authorities testified, they said they enjoyed their relationship with Transport and they had no issues for us to inspect them, to audit them. I told them about the possibility of administrative monetary penalties that we would have to give to CN or CP, and in turn CN and CP would go to them, they told me, “No problem, give it to us right away.” But we can't do that without this tool.
Somehow, it seems that they are willing to comply with everything we have in place, but not the railway operating certificate.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
I agree with the parliamentary secretary that because they're dealing with people and not just cargo, it's important that safety regulations be in place, and I think it has to be covered. I guess it's just who is going to be responsible for covering that? That was my question, whether it would be the ones who own the actual track or the ones who are operating the rail.
I think, as you've said, what you've done is try to incorporate it so there will be a definition of who will be covered and the responsibilities for various aspects of that transport.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
It's true that there are negotiations between CN and CP about using the tracks. But now, urban transit authorities will be forced to get the certificate. If there are discussions on the quality of the tracks, for example, they will have to refer directly to the contract negotiations with the operators, because the operators don't have the same responsibilities. An operator carrying or transporting wood does not have the same responsibilities as an operator transporting people. Their responsibilities are currently bound by a contract. So, if you are ever questioning a certificate because you find there is a problem with the track or whatnot, the parties will be forced to go renegotiate the contract.
What urban transit authorities are afraid of is the cost. They are not necessarily afraid of getting that, but rather of who is going to pick up the bill. Ultimately, they are going to be the ones paying. And you are well aware of that. There is no choice when it comes to transporting people; it must be done every day and if, at some point, work has to get done, some of the risks will be transferred over. You are about to transfer the burden to the transit authorities. That is not your intent, but I am telling you that is what is going to happen...
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
...because their operating certificate is going to be questioned. You are going to question them, they are going to have to fix it quickly and it will come out of their own pockets. That's what is going to happen.
4:10 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
No. Mr. Laframboise, what I can tell you is that, even as we speak, slow orders have been given to the CP on tracks used by AMT, which were considerably slowing down the AMT trains coming into the Lucien-L'Allier station. The CP is responsible for solving this problem. Of course, they have contractual agreements. If they have service standards to comply with, they will have to comply with them. However, their contractual obligations for track maintenance should not be confused with a permit telling Transport Canada what the list of regulations for their operations is. They will be providing that document, which will then govern the Transport Canada audits and inspections. And that's what is going to happen. What you are saying is already happening. As to the Canadian Pacific Railway, I am not familiar with the contract, but I suppose there are service standards. If the Canadian Pacific Railway decides not to repair the track and that the speed limit has to stay at 40 miles per hour for 20 or 30 miles, we, at Transport Canada, are not going to get involved as long as the train is safe when it travels at 20 or 30 miles per hour.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
That's fine, but now, you are going to get involved because they are going to need their certificate. You are going to get involved with the commuter trains.
4:15 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
No, because their certificate will not change the fact that it is safe at low speed. That is not going to change.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Just very quickly, I want to say that nobody can operate a track without a contractual obligation to keep the track in good repair so that the operators can operate it. There's a contractual obligation on all the track owners to do so. I would think that's the case between the privity of contract between the operator and the owner.
I think that would take care of that issue as well, from my perspective.
