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.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
It's just a question, Mr. Chair. I thank Mr. Trost for his addition to the explanation.
Was there a request by witnesses before this committee to make this change?
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I don't remember. My understanding is that it was to confirm—I might be corrected on this by the people who have been working on this file for a long time—and make sure that there wasn't substandard work being done under the act in relation to rail safety. If a crew went out and did work on site, if they had, exactly as Mr. Trost said, somebody who works on it and is in training, they would then provide what has actually been done by drawing or by specifics, and then it would be sent back to be signed off by a professional engineer, just to make sure that the quality was up to the level necessary.
I think it was a departmental recommendation, not brought up by a witness, but I did speak to one particular witness who thought it was good.
I would like to hear from Mr. Dhaliwal.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
I certainly agree with Mr. Trost. I've been in this profession for the last almost 20 years, and the way I see it, there are always opportunities for other people, junior engineers or engineers in training, to do the work, and engineers take full responsibility. We also are responsible to our peers as well.
The engineers do the work to the highest standards, so I would certainly support Mr. Jean's recommendation.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'm just going to say that no one would guess that Mr. Dhaliwal was an engineer based on that tie, because I don't think there's any order at all.
But it's a beautiful tie, Mr. Dhaliwal--a great tie.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Is there any further comment?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 8 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 9 agreed to)
(On clause 10)
Monsieur Laframboise, we are dealing with Bloc amendment BQ-3, on page 7 in your set of amendments.
3:45 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Subsection 17.1(1) of clause 10 reads as follows:
17.1(1) No person shall operate or maintain a railway, or operate railway equipment on a railway, without a railway operating certificate.
Paragraph (2) states the following:
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person exempted under paragraph 17.9(1)(c) or to a municipality or road authority that maintains a crossing work.
The Governor in Council is the one who could provide an order-in-council exemption.
The following would be added: "or to an urban transit authority." The reason is that the railway operating certificate is not mandatory for an urban transit authority.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Laframboise and I have worked for years together on this particular committee, and with great respect to his position on this one, I just can't agree to it. First of all, with respect to the evidence relating to what they are seeking, it is an exemption from being required to operate a track with a certificate from the federal government, which in essence means to be exempted from this legislation to be safe.
From my perspective, when I was listening to them ask to be exempted, I thought to myself that they were asking for the safety of the act to apply to transportation of products—desks from Montreal, or furniture from Montreal, or clothing or vehicles, or whatever the case may be to be covered by the Railway Safety Act—but not people, and it just did not make any sense to me. The most precious cargo we can carry on the rail system is people, and they are asking to be exempted from it because they're carrying people, which to me just doesn't make sense.
Specifically, the evidence they produced was not substantial enough to warrant excluding them from federal authority. In fact, one witness particularly said that something in the neighbourhood of 50% or 60% of their operation was on federal tracks. My understanding is that if this is adopted as well as amendment BQ-1, it will create an environment that would mean they would not have to comply with the federal authority on this track just because they're running people. There is no logic to that for me.
My understanding, and I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong, is that even though they may be exempted, the company they rent the track from on which they operate the train would still be required to maintain the federal obligations.
In essence, even though the owner of the track is obligated to maintain that safety level, exempting the operator of it first of all confuses the law, I would suggest, and second does not make any sense whatsoever, because although as a transit authority I certainly don't want to be under federal jurisdiction, it doesn't make sense that we would allow people to be exempted from safety when we are requiring product and goods to abide by the safety regime of the federal government.
Mr. Bourdon, I know, has vast experience on this, and I'd love to hear his position.
3:50 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
I would like to provide a bit of an explanation to Mr. Laframboise about the context. In the panel recommendation, which has been determined and which we knew about, it is that, right now, before a railway begins operating, there are no criteria that would allow us to determine whether it is safe or not. So, when someone wants to start operating a railway, that person goes to the Canadian Transportation Agency and gets a certificate of fitness. The only thing that's checked is whether the operators have enough money to cover a derailment or an accident. Checks are made to determine if they have insurance or enough money to cover that.
What the panel recommended, and what was demonstrated, is that it would be useful for us if each railway operating on federal tracks were to obtain this operating certificate, which would show us everything they have put in place to ensure safety. At that point, it would become a tool available to our inspectors, who would then have a document that would indicate exactly which rules apply and how those railways are operating.
If we do not adopt this certificate, we are still going to transfer the accountability to the railways, such as Canadian Pacific and Canadian National, and each time something is not consistent with the standards, it will be necessary to go to the other railway to ask that repairs or corrections be made by the urban train.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
You are giving an answer about why the urban train operators are afraid. If they are required to have the operating certificate, whomever they rent the tracks from will transfer part of the bill to them. That's what they've feared from the beginning. Anyway, when it comes to certification, you know, they are operating at a rate of 90% on railways run by rail carriers. So the battle is still about fees and costs. If they also manage to raise a problem relating to the certificate, in other words, to make a complaint and ensure that the operator of the urban train is responsible, that would mean that, if the operator is responsible, he would have to pay. Otherwise, the operator will not have the certificate. Right now, what you are telling me, is that, if there is a security-related complaint, the owner of the track would have to do the work.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
It's true that the owner of the track does the work. What you're going to do is you are going to take away the operating certificate from the operator, the one transporting passengers. You are going to tell him that there's a problem with his certificate. You can go that far, you can go so far as to take away the certificate.
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
No. We met with the urban train operators and spoke with them. First, using a class 1 railway track, if we're talking about CN and CP, pertains to a contractual agreement that they have with them. We were very clear. In the railway operating permit for an urban train, for example, track maintenance is the responsibility of the track owner, and not the urban train. So, if there is a problem with the railway track, it's CN or CP that will be responsible. But there have been situations in the past where cars with defective wheels were used on urban trains, and corrective action had to be taken against Canadian Pacific and Canadian National to get them to come back and get the railway that should have been accountable to do the repairs. This is what the certificate will allow us to do.
But we mustn't think that, because they have an operating certificate, they are going to become responsible overnight for all the work on the tracks. These are contractual agreements that they have together, and we have nothing to do with it. What I want to know is what rules are going to apply.
The other advantage for the urban trains that some of us promoted and that they mentioned to the panel is the possibility, with the operating certificate, of being able to set out their own rules, which will be made in accordance with their operation, rather than adopt the rules of a railway that transports merchandise. It's an important point. So, this certificate will let them make their own rules and be exempted from existing rules, which they cannot be exempted from right now.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Bourdon, if it was so good for them, they would have said yes to you. Do you understand? You are telling me that they are the ones who asked for all of that. So why are they asking us to be exempted? There must be a problem with your panel.
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
All I can tell you is that, from where we stand, it's a tool. It would be extremely useful to know exactly what their safety profile is. As Mr. Jean mentioned, they transport 65 million people every year. So, we are going to ask some small shortlines that transport wood or minerals to have an operating certificate, but we are going to tell urban train operators that transport 65 million people that they don't need one.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
It still depends. What you are telling me is that you are going to set the criteria.
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
By regulation, in consultation with them. When we had the presentation from the urban trains here, the gentleman who…
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Except that you will make the obligation of having the certificate effective immediately. You still haven't established…
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Rail Safety, Department of Transport
No, not at all, Mr. Laframboise. In the bill, there is a grace period of two full years.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I think I'll come back to Monsieur Laframboise. I have Mr. McCallum on my list, Mr. Trost, and Mr. Julian.
Mr. McCallum.
March 10th, 2011 / 3:55 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
I would support this amendment on the grounds that we've heard: safety should trump. I think the details can be handled through regulations in terms of how these companies are treated.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm trying to see if I understand this correctly. If BQ-3 were to pass—the amendment we're talking about here now—the only real way for federal safety regulation to be put onto these urban transit authorities would be by pressuring CN and CP because they have federal tracks. They would then pressure the transit authorities. We'd be trying to do this in a sort of domino fashion to get what we were looking for on safety rather than dealing directly with the urban transit.
Am I understanding you correctly?