Transport Committee on March 27th, 2014

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Of course the purpose of our hearings is to conduct a review—a study, if you will—into both the safety management systems and the transportation of dangerous goods, with an eye to both an interim report in June with our findings and then a final report at the end of the year with recommendations to the minister on where improvements can be made. So your testimony today is providing some valuable insight, I think, in that respect.

Mr. Boudreault, let me start with you, with a few questions here. By protective direction, the minister has implemented the two-man crew regulation as a permanent, ongoing one. I take from your testimony today that both you and your members are very supportive of that being a permanent direction for the transportation of dangerous goods. Is that correct?

[Richard Boudreault]

The union's position is clear: we do not agree with the one-man crew.

Obviously, the minister's position is a good start, but before putting that in place, our people need the necessary training. Trains transporting dangerous goods are getting longer and longer, which requires changes to the safety regulations. We did not have the same concerns about dangerous goods 20 years ago that we have today. For example, crude oil contains a lot of additives we aren't familiar with.

I think our people need to be trained and informed. It's not enough to simply put two people instead of one on a convoy of a mile or a mile and a half long. People also need to know what to do. They need to be trained and ready for any situation.That's important. The union and the members concerned must be stakeholders in decisions involving changes to the rail safety rules.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Speaking of safety training, are your members receiving adequate safety training from your employers? If not, how can that be improved?

[Richard Boudreault]

Let me give you an example.

Yesterday, March 26, I met with the union representative who was investigating MMA concerning a dismissal. The issue in the case was parking on a main track. Basically, a train parked on the main track was hit by another train. We thought that the new Transport Canada rules had resolved the matter. I was told that Transport Canada had established new rules that apply to different railways. Employees were asked to sign a document indicating that they had read the rules. We were given no information about this. And there was no follow-up.

You can see what situation our workers are in. Once again, there are accident risks. The train could have jumped the tracks and gone through a community without anyone even knowing what it was carrying. It is important that Transport Canada take its responsibilities and, if need be, impose severe penalties on companies that do not follow the rules. Transport Canada must also follow-up on training and ensure that its rules are being applied properly. However, that is not the way things are currently.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

So the new administrative monetary penalties that are coming in as a result of Bill S-4 and its regulations are an important additional tool of compliance that can be used. In the old way, we had to prosecute a company in order to obtain a fine. The administrative monetary penalties will be an important step forward in enforcement as well.

[Richard Boudreault]

It has no price. A nightmare like Lac Mégantic must not happen again. In my opinion, Transport Canada must take reasonable action. If that means taking away the licence of a company that doesn't respect the rules, then so be it. Imposing fines is good, but we need to go further, even if it means taking away the licence.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Actually, as a result of Bill S-4, we will have the power to yank licences as well.

One of the questions that's been under some advisement, if you will, is the question of extending emergency response action plans to the Bakken type of crude, if you will, and to aviation fuel and other types of more flammable substances. Is it the position of your union and members that ERAPs for these particular classes of chemicals are an important step forward in improving the safety regime? What's your recommendation to the government on that?

[Richard Boudreault]

I think teams should be trained. We are talking about the transport of dangerous goods. I think that in these kinds of situation there should be teams of first responders who can step in when there is an incident or accident, in order to avoid catastrophes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

On disclosure with respect to safety management systems, I want to probe maybe one of the specifics. When it comes to a company's safety objectives—and they're required to have them—we know at the end of the year by way of annual reports what safety objectives have been achieved, but we don't know whether they achieved what they set out to achieve.

Would it be your recommendation, for example, that on full disclosure, rail companies should on the front end disclose what their safety objectives are for the coming year? Are there any problems with doing this that you could foresee, Mr. Boudreault?

[Richard Boudreault]

The position of the steelworkers union is clear. We want the information made public. I understand that in some situations—

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

But which information? I'm trying to get specifics. I've proposed a specific. I don't know whether that's—

[Richard Boudreault]

We want to know what is on the trains. We want to know what these railways are transporting. We want to know what the trains contain. We are not asking that the information be given to everyone, but to the people involved so that they can make the right decisions when incidents or catastrophes happen.

We want this information to be given to the first responders—not to the first responders who are members of the steelworkers union—but to those who are responsible for ensuring everyone's safety. They need to be able to make the right decisions.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

But that is the new information disclosure agreement signed with the FCM and others: that first responders will be appointed in that respect and will have that information for their consideration.

Mr. Hematian, I have a question for you, because I'm interested in the engineering—

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Very quickly, Mr. Watson, because you're out of time.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay.

On the engineering, you got into an interesting question about clearances and specs, about changes in thickness, for example, of a particular tanker car. I guess I'm speculating about new designs down the road. If you were to change the thickness, it could affect the capacity or the effect of a car on a track, for example, or anything like that. Are there limitations to new design going forward that might have unintended consequences?

If we have thicker, heavier cars, I'm worried about what the effect would be on a railbed or whether that would extend the length of a train. Everything has trade-offs. Can you take us through a little of that?

[Jamal Hematian]

I have just a quick answer to that one on whether we should change it or not. In adding one-sixteenth to the thickness of material for the unjacketed car, you are adding about 9,000 to 10,000 pounds to that car. Don't forget the gross freight load. I talked about it. Your top load is 286,000 pounds. If you put 10,000 pounds there, you give up 10,000 pounds on your capacity. On the jacketed, insulated car it's a little bit less; it's 7,000 to 8,000 pounds, so you are giving up 8,000 pounds of your loading capacity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Sullivan, you have five minutes.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our witnesses. This is a tough issue, I know.

I'll go first to Monsieur Boudreault.

The mechanism by which the Canadian government regulates safety in the operation of a railroad is something called SMS, safety management systems. How many of the union members, or the union executive, or the union leaders know what's in an SMS? Does anybody except the railroad executives know? We've tried to get it. It's confidential information. They won't show it to us.

[Richard Boudreault]

With all due respect, sir, I don't know everything. I can't say how many people know what's in the SMS or how many don't. I can't answer that question.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

We've been told it's not available to many people to see. The other issue is that—

[Richard Boudreault]

I would like to add something, if I may. We are talking about the SMS and the applicable legislation, but I've realized that the safety rules are different in some cases. They are done on a piecemeal basis from company to company.

I'll give you the example of MMA. The one-man crew is not authorized throughout Canada. Two companies in Quebec have this authorization and, as you know, it came as a result of intense lobbying.

You are asking me how many people know what's in the railway safety management system. If we stop incorporating or giving little treats to everyone and small companies so they can operate, maybe we can draft a detailed report to determine what is in the SMS. However, if Transport Canada hands out piecemeal benefits to certain companies, you too will say that no one can know everything.

One thing is clear: Transport Canada must assume responsibility. The rule must be applied to everyone and be the same for all stakeholders, including the unions. We think we have our piece to say about that. We have always been leaders in safety, and we are willing to take leadership to help Transport Canada so that this is done properly.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

And in fact, the law was changed in 2012 to permit the involvement of employees and their collective bargaining agents in the ongoing operation of the safety management system at a railway company, but Transport Canada hasn't enacted the regulations to make that happen. So we have a law that says you should be involved, but Transport Canada hasn't bothered to create the mechanism for you to be involved. So you're still in the dark.

[Richard Boudreault]

Exactly.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

The other piece of the puzzle is that Transport Canada also has the power to make an executive responsible for the safety management system, and Transport Canada has not done that either. So there is no bottom line. There's nobody who is ultimately responsible for the safety of Canada when it comes to the operation of railroads.

[Richard Boudreault]

I'll go even further, if I may. Decisions are made by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. It seems that there is a wall between the recommendations of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada and Transport Canada. The left hand doesn't seem to know what the right hand is doing.

Furthermore, some decisions have been made public. Recommendations were made following serious incidents and accidents in Ontario in 2012 and in Quebec in 2009. However, Transport Canada never implemented those recommendations. If they had been, we would not be here today talking about the one-man crew. In fact, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada has clearly said and recommended that one-man crews should not be used, especially when transporting dangerous goods. The decisions were clear. I understand that the investigations haven't yet been completed but there was an incident in 2013 that clearly involved the same problem.

How is it that the left hand is making recommendations and the right hand is not taking them into account?