Thanks for the question. I guess our biggest concerns in Saskatchewan with the trains and the length of them is their travel through communities and access to communities and access to emergency services in the event of something happening.
We have had communities report that trains going through have cut off access in excess of 20 minutes and greater. We have concerns about that side of it. We understand why they have to go to that, to move that type of product.
The other issue we have with the movement of dangerous goods through communities, regardless of shoreline or class I, is that in many rural communities across this country, there are volunteer fire departments. It's the training of those volunteer fire departments for the movement of dangerous goods. My colleague, Monsieur Demers, made a good comment about where we house that equipment and how the training is going. In many cases in Saskatchewan, the Railway Association of Canada is doing that now. I think it's important and vital that we do that.
I think there are things that we can do through the equipment and through the emergency preparedness in working that side of it. There has to be some discussion. On the transloading facilities in Saskatchewan, we're getting an average of just about one a week being approved. So that is definitely becoming an increase with the movement of oil on rail. It's going to continue to increase.
I think right now rail is much safer than putting it on the road. We definitely don't want to do that. So we have to work with the system that we have to mitigate all the risk and to work with all parties to make this work right.